Never in my country

September 12, 2001 2:22 PM

Never in my country wouldl an airliner be allowed to fly off course. This was posted in a discussion thread I think. There's nothing I can say.
posted by HoldenCaulfield (36 comments total)

I'm having a bit of trouble accepting the idea that we need to institute a defense infrastructure designed to blow domestic passenger jets out of the sky.

These hijackers used small knives. Maybe there is a better way to deal with the threat than blowing up the plane.
posted by y6y6y6 at 2:56 PM on September 12, 2001

So, you just shoot them out of the sky then.....?

In talking to my father, a former air traffic controller and at one time Director of Southeastern Airspace, it does happen from time to time that planes get off course. Usually you just contact them and they correct. If you can't contact them, then there is a whole 'nother protocol that you follow. I assume that this is what they were in the process of when the planes crashed into the WTC.

What would you suggest they have done?
posted by elfgirl at 3:02 PM on September 12, 2001

So, you just shoot them out of the sky then.....?
In Russia, yep.
posted by dchase at 3:10 PM on September 12, 2001

If we had had a similar system in place, the planes could have been shot down and possibly hundreds would have died instead of thousands. It would be horrible. All of the people on the planes would die, and who knows how many people on the ground would be killed or injured by the wreckage. Is this something we can even consider? Or don't we have to consider this now?

"What would you suggest they have done?"

Have a better way for pilots to indicate they've been hijacked, since none of the pilots were able to do this. Seal off the cabin from the passenger compartment for the duration of the flight so it's impossible for anyone to take control of the plane. If there's time, send up fighters to escort planes that go off course and don't respond to communication. If the plane doesn't correct its course, doesn't respond to communication, and continues to head towards populated areas, the fighters have to shoot the plane down. Or there could be missile batteries in the cities.

It's horrible to contemplate, but I think we may have to, unless the US dramatically changes how it throws its weight around and maintains policies that provoke this kind of attack.
posted by kirkaracha at 3:16 PM on September 12, 2001

Have a better way for pilots to indicate they've been hijacked, since none of the pilots were able to do this.

Isn't there a "panic button" in cockpits for pilots that would broadcast some signal to indicate to air traffic controllers that something has gone horribly wrong?
posted by monosyllabic at 3:22 PM on September 12, 2001

shooting down an off-course, non-responsive passenger jet only to discover it was only having technical problems. imagine the public outrage.
posted by tolkhan at 3:24 PM on September 12, 2001

I often wondered why, with all the recent press about air rage and rowdy, drunken passenger, there aren't armed security guards on flights. I understand that we used to have "sky marshalls" -- armed security travelling incognito, but that the plan was discontinued? (sorry, can't find an appropriate link)

In any case, it seems to me that if even one person on any of these planes were armed (or had access to arms), the death and damage could have been greatly reduced. (And no, I'm not saying passengers should be allowed to pack heat.)

Would you feel more secure if you believed someone on your flight was armed and looking after your safety? I think I would.
posted by scottandrew at 3:32 PM on September 12, 2001

Scott, the FAA spokesman today said that there was no plan to bring back sky marshalls. Didn't say why.
posted by fooljay at 3:35 PM on September 12, 2001

yes, there is a panic button, apparently the control tower then radios back to find out what the problem is. We should install an 'i've been hijacked button' on all commercial carrier planes. Simple idea, easily implemented.

Also, what if the hijackers were just trained in martial arts? Not a frivolous comment, you can do a lot of damage and inflict much pain without weaponry
posted by Mossy at 3:37 PM on September 12, 2001

In Russia no such situation has occured. No passenger jet has ever been shot down by the defense installments. Ever. That is not to say that no passenger planes have gone off course.

Elfgirl, when a plane does go off course "by accident" then it corrects itelf alomost instantaneously (within seconds of communication). And if that plane does not correct itself and does not respond, well then it is shot down. Life is life, and so a few ppl die to save a few hundred.

Personally I am not dazed and confused by this incident at the WTC. The question as a whole must be asked: Why was it done? That's a cliche of course at this hour. These ppl along with the terrorist group(s) that sponsored this had a reason (not necessarily justified) to bomb this world symbol. This gets a little tricky now as we go into philosophy and debate mankind, but in anycase we as a world society (every country, ppl) have problems. Let's resolve them.

Your thoughts please.
posted by HoldenCaulfield at 3:44 PM on September 12, 2001

Just a thought. How would you prevent a Sky Marshall from hijacking the plane?
posted by the biscuit man at 3:45 PM on September 12, 2001

"Would you feel more secure if you believed someone on your flight was armed and looking after your safety? I think I would."

If there's one sky marshal on the plane and a terrorist gets the jump on him, then the terrorist has a gun. If there are two sky marshals, then there's a shootout. So, no, I wouldn't necessarily feel safer.
posted by kirkaracha at 3:47 PM on September 12, 2001

first off, there would be too many levels to go through to determine the plane was "shootable".

second, they have sky marshalls on international flights, dont know why they dont on american...

third, i agree with the sealing of the cockpit, would save a lot lives...

a question: how, in your mind, would the hijackers be able to get into the cockpit and grab the people before the pilot was able to press the alarm? threaten someone?
i originally thought that the pilots would have been grabbed and pulled out of their seats...that is my only guess...
posted by JackthaStripper at 3:51 PM on September 12, 2001

In Russia no such situation has occured. No passenger jet has ever been shot down by the defense installments. Ever.

April 20, 1978. KAL Flight 902 shot by Soviet fighter, makes emergency landing on frozen lake. 2 killed.

September 1, 1983. KAL Flight 007 shot by Soviet fighter. Breaks up mid-air. 269 killed.

Comments?
posted by jaek at 4:09 PM on September 12, 2001

Just a thought. How would you prevent a Sky Marshall from hijacking the plane?

Well, I guess you can't, but could subject them to the same psychological and background screening given to cops, firemen, etc.

Every option noted in the thread above has its share of risk and are hardly foolproof.

jaek, I was just about to mention KAL 007. I remember it happening.
posted by scottandrew at 4:14 PM on September 12, 2001

i saw an interview with someone from the faa. he said that due to the way the cabins are pressurized the cockpit could not be sealed off. they have to be able to open the doors in case of a pressure drop and in fact, some of the doors are equipped with panels that can pop out in case of emergency.

also, is it even possible to fire a gun in a plane? i mean, i'm sure you could, but wouldn't it harm the plane if a bullet went stray?
posted by centrs at 4:17 PM on September 12, 2001

Yes, it's possible to use bullets that disintegrate on impact with something solid. These are relatively (not perfectly) safe to use in planes. Non-lethal weapons could also be provided to the flight crew, along with more self-defense training. Alarm systems could monitor the vital signs of pilots and flight crew and automatically start broadcasting an SOS if these were interrupted.

Pilots certainly can be sealed into the cockpit, as long as you don't require the "seal" to be airtight -- merely enough to keep terrorists out of the cockpit and to remove the pilot's option to leave the cockpit in case of emergency. This would still allow pilots to be gassed, but without access to the cockpit, this wouldn't get a hijacker anywhere.
posted by kindall at 4:25 PM on September 12, 2001

Scott, the FAA spokesman today said that there was no plan to bring back sky marshalls. Didn't say why.

Did perhaps they say that the FAA has no plans to expand the skymarshal program? That would make more sense, since the program still exists.

They fly in plainclothes on (somewhat) random flights. They are actually called "federal air marshals" and are FAA employees.

Regarding sealed cockpits: CNN & ABC have both reported (via the cell phone reports) that in at least one case the pilots left the cockpit to give aid when the terrorists began by attacking a flight attendant. If you check some of the air rage reports over the past year, you'll find this isn't really that uncommon ... the pilot or co-pilot being called to help subdue a rowdy/raging/dangerous passenger. Since the door between the cabin and the cockpit closes and must be locked in flight (although its flimsy and can be broken down) I presume this is how they first gained access to the flight crew.
posted by anastasiav at 4:25 PM on September 12, 2001

Whoops, didn't fully read that message about sealing pilots into cockpits before replying.

What is necessary is to remove the ability to get the pilots to open the cockpit by threatening the crew or passengers. Just as a time-lock removes the ability of a convenience-store clerk to open the safe on demand, so will taking the ability to open the cockpit away from the pilot neutralize the effectiveness of such threats.
posted by kindall at 4:32 PM on September 12, 2001

"Would you feel more secure if you believed someone on your flight was armed and looking after your safety? I think I would."

If there's one sky marshal on the plane and a terrorist gets the jump on him, then the terrorist has a gun. If there are two sky marshals, then there's a shootout. So, no, I wouldn't necessarily feel safer.
posted by kirkaracha at 4:35 PM on September 12, 2001

you said that already.
posted by kindall at 4:35 PM on September 12, 2001

i saw an interview with someone from the faa. he said that due to the way the cabins are pressurized the cockpit could not be sealed off.

Someone on NPR mentioned that El Al does have sealed (i.e., inaccessible) cockpits. However, I do agree that they'd have to take the control out of the pilots' hands to make them effective, which wasn't addressed on NPR.

As for the sky marshals, I believe the cost was deemed prohibitive. When cross-country coach flights cost $700+ a head before deregulation, it wasn't a big deal to throw in a complimentary armed guard.
posted by yerfatma at 5:05 PM on September 12, 2001

One retired pilot commentator mentioned today that the terrorists used knives rather than guns, not because they were easier to smuggle on board, but because of the danger of explosive decompression if they used them. That would have "jeopardized their mission." I don't think guns are the best weapon to have on a plane.
posted by curiousg at 5:14 PM on September 12, 2001

It's also rumoured that there is a plain clothes Massad agent on every El Al flight as well.

As to the issue of contacting ATC if a plane is in danger -- There is apparently a transponder frequency that is, in effect, a 911 code. So, there is a way to let a tower know if there is a serious problem, but you have to have the time to do it.
posted by elfgirl at 5:19 PM on September 12, 2001

I don't think guns are the best weapon to have on a plane.

This is what I have always heard, though I'm certainly no expert.
posted by rushmc at 5:19 PM on September 12, 2001

You all have good ideas! Having a sealed and secured cockpit with no door would be excellent, except the case of sick or dead pilots where no one could access the cabin to fly. Also, having a sky marshal on flights would not be a great, because then the terrorist has access to a gun on every flight. I would feel more secure if my conceal carry was honored in the air, but I'm sure no one else would be! We could have an auto parachute go off under certain situations!
posted by rbrandt1 at 5:32 PM on September 12, 2001

Jaek -

I meant post-Soviet. I think everyone here remembers the 007 tragedy. You have to understand that the Soviet Union is/was (as you like) very different from today's (my) Russia. We are dems now. And plus this was during the Cold-War era and thus if a similar situation were to take place in the US of A (if it annoys you tell me) at that time then the result could have been also very similar, crash landing, being forced down by fighters et al.
posted by HoldenCaulfield at 5:33 PM on September 12, 2001

I think they should have a button that deploys sleeping gas to the passenger compartment in the cockpit. That would solve all problems.
posted by chester at 5:47 PM on September 12, 2001

So then would gas masks become prohibited carry-on items, as they might imply an intention to hijack despite being gassed?
posted by jenwells at 6:56 PM on September 12, 2001

These are all interesting comments. The trouble is that any one of them is circumventable by a determined individual. It's just like your car's club lock can be shattered by a professional thief -- but 90% of thieves are amateurs and will just look for the next car. The trouble with airplanes is, that next airplane is still something you don't want hijacked. Our air passenger security systems are based on deterrence, not on foolproof prevention. The latter is much more expensive, and involves trade-offs with other issues of safety that may take precedence. If pilots are locked in their cabins, for instance, a bunch of them are going to retire unless you pay them a lot more money (and then, hey, you have the problem of pilots getting pulmonary embolisms for sitting all the way to California). If you give pilots a "panic button", you then have the very serious issue of false positives and false negatives. 99 out of 100 activations are going to be accidental. Asking the pilot of a hijacked plane whether his activation of the panic button was accidental is not necessarily going to give you a useful answer.
posted by dhartung at 7:09 PM on September 12, 2001

All the planes were chosen so that the deviations from their filed flight paths were small, and made "at the last minute". Airports are near major cities, so aircraft fly near major cities. Even in Russia.
posted by andrew cooke at 11:59 PM on September 12, 2001

1) Lock down the cabin for the flight. Crap, put a big bar on the other side if you have to keep costs down.
2) Give the pilots their meals and a pee-bag when they go in.
3) Give the pilots a .45 and a pass to the range.
4) Give every cop around the country 1 free round trip ticket a year anywhere they want to go, and require them to carry their piece concealed.
5) Publicize the crap out of your new Airline Security plan. Do you want to take a gamble as to which flight has the cop with the concealed weapon?

These are low cost ideas. Heck if Priceline could afford to just give me $135 round trip tickets across the country, you know they can give up a little for the extra security of the Free Cop Vacations plan.

And to answer the "won't the bullets hurt the plane" questions....well, I think that a few holes in a plane, or a few trashed ear drums would be a welcome replacement for what we've seen the past few days.
posted by nwduffer at 1:07 AM on September 13, 2001

nwduffer:

"A few holes in the plane" would become a very big hole in the plane....very quickly. Explosive decompression of the cabin at altitude would immediately destroy the airplane. I don't know anything about these bullets that shatter on contact with something hard, but there are two basic problems with using them:

1) The skin of an airplane is not exactly "hard". It is very thin because it needs to be very light. Its only purpose it to hold its shape, not protect against piercing objects.

2) Any terrorists wearing a bullet-proof vest makes it a moot point anyway.

But, why not equip these air marshals with tasers, or even cattle prods. Nothing but a bullet to the head will drop a person faster than a couple of thousand volts.
posted by thewittyname at 6:30 AM on September 13, 2001

uninhidited:

it'd be really easy to spot the cops flying around, because they couldn't pass through the security checkpoints like you or uninhibited would. there would have to be some procedure or checkpoint pass to let the security agents know that said police officer can pass through the metal detectors uninhibited. a careful observer (or wannabe hijacker) would not only be able to identify which airplanes were carrying police officers (by following the police officers and their families to the gate), but also where they might find a weapon on the gate side of security.
posted by astirling at 6:51 AM on September 13, 2001

oops - uninhidited should read "nwduffer". darn spell checker.
posted by astirling at 6:52 AM on September 13, 2001