Armed pilots

TWINKLE_TOES · Mar 14, 2002

CP1969,

There's a sh-tpot full of wires, hydraulic and fuel lines, and control cables running through the aircraft, Your right on here. Looking at a large commerecial jet in the factory before all that stuff is covered is mind bogling. any one of which has the potential, if damaged, to down the aircraft Not really. All large commercial aircraft primary flight systems are highly redundant. Single, double and in some instances triple failures of any of these systems do not endanger the continued safe flight and landing of the aircraft.
Al

cp1969 · Mar 14, 2002

Not sure I agree. Remember Al Haynes? He might not agree with you, either. Nor would the pilots (if they were alive) of the AA DC10 at Chicago, Turkish Airlines DC10 near Paris, UAL 737 at Colorado Springs, USAir 737 at Pittsburgh, Alaska MD80 off California coast. All of these crashed without having holes shot in their doubly and triply redundant flight control systems.

TWINKLE_TOES · Mar 15, 2002

Randy,
Not sure I agree. Not sure you need to, at least you left room for discussion./w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif. I don't think I meant airplanes never crash as a result of single events. Pilot error, weather, improper maintence, failure of primary structure to name but a few, have brought airplanes down. The worst single event accident I can recall was the DC10 at Souix city. An uncontained engine failure severed all three hydraulic systems. Still, single event failures for primary flight contols are highly redundant and single failures recoverable.

The following information about some of the crashes you identified was extracted from this <A target="_blank" HREF=http://airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm>Link</A> The other accidents you mentioned are also reported, but I think I have strayed far enough from the subject of the thread with just these.

25 May 1979; American Airlines DC10-10; Chicago, USA: During the takeoff roll, the left engine and pylon separated from the wing. The crew continued the takeoff, but wing damage due to the engine separation also damaged the aircraft hydraulic system and caused retraction of some flight control surfaces. The aircraft rolled and crashed shortly after takeoff. All 258 passengers and 13 crew were killed.

3 March 1974; THY DC10-10; near Paris, France: During climb, a rear cargo door which was improperly closed blew out. The resulting cabin decompression caused damage to the main cabin floor and to some control cables in the area. The crew was unable to control the aircraft and the plane crashed. All 333 passengers and 12 crew were killed.

3 March 1991; United Airlines 737-200; near Colorado Springs, CO: The aircraft departed from controlled flight and crashed during its approach. The NTSB has not yet determined the cause of this accident. All five crew members and 20 passengers were killed. NTSB report link available.

Al

Chuck52 · Mar 15, 2002

This discussion is wandering around, isn't it. Seems to me that if we assume the terrorists get aboard without firearms or explosives, only armed with "knives", the most important thing is to prevent them from gaining control of the pilots. Is this better done by arming the pilots or by denying access to the flight deck? I suppose one could imagine the flying slaughterhouse scenario, where the pilots are safe behind locked doors while the terrorists are slicing and dicing the passengers, but even old guys like me would resist getting that treatment. On the other hand, what happens if one of the knife-wielding terrorists takes a pilot or co-pilot by surprise and gets his gun? Or maybe he just gets into the cockpit and offs the whole flight crew with his knife before they can whip that six-gun out and pop him? It just seems to me that maintaining pilot safety is the issue. I'd rather they had better doors than guns. If they want guns too, that's fine with me, so long as they don't get complacent about the doors!

Chuck

RoyJackson · Mar 15, 2002

If they want guns too, that's fine with me, so long as they don't get complacent about the doors!

This is very true!! Being proactive (the doors) is much better then being reactive (gun or any other defensive weapon)

Bob_Trevithick · Mar 15, 2002

Hi Wingnut,

...Bob ... the anti-American comment I made was in reference to the entire tone of the article.

Okay, understood. But, that aside, did the actual arguments Mike presented in that article sound reasonable to you? I don't see how the situation could have happened as they claim it did.. it just seems like some "impossible" things happened on this flight. The data is very weird, to say the least.

Can you set aside your feelings about the author's tone and reply to the substance of the article, provided of course you have any interest in doing so? I just makes no sense at all to me that they could blame the co-pilot for murdering all these people, based on what is known about this flight. But then, I'm no aviation expert.. and maybe Mike's assertions are simply wrong. But since he spent 14 years working for Boeing, it's seems likely he has at least some idea of what he's talking about.

BTW, I'd love to hear comments from anyone else who is interested in such things....

Thanks,
Bob

Charlie_Iliff · Mar 15, 2002

Re: Egyptair

Bob:
By coincidence, I saw on TV news last night that the NTSB will be issuing its Egyptair report within the next few days, with the finding that the copilot caused the accident. Reportedly they will not say deliberately, although the inference will be inescapable.
I am an inactive private pilot, and lawyer with some aviation practice including defense of airline crash cases. Although I am skeptical of NTSB investigations, the factual packages usually have so much technical detail, by so many different people, that I have trouble visualizing an effective conspiracy to hide real information. I'd want to see the Egyptair package before agreeing or disagreeing with anything at all in the article speculating about an anti-gravity UFO. I have not seen the package, but articles I recall seeing did not report the 8000 ft climb. When the report is issued, I will be interested to see what it contains, particularly since my wife lost a cousin on that flight.
Although I think an NTSB/FBI/military coverup to be difficult to accomplish, I do not believe the fuel explosion theory on TWA 800. If that were true, 747 parts would be littering the landscape. Some convincing eyewitnesses said they saw a streak resembling a missile. "Investigators" explained to them how wrong they were. Litigators involved in that one are sure they will never get the whole story.
So back to arming the pilots: A friend of mine has said for years that each passenger should be issued a handgun at the boarding ramp. There would be no more attempted hijackings.

Bob_Trevithick · Mar 15, 2002

Re: Egyptair

... I'd want to see the Egyptair package before agreeing or disagreeing with anything at all in the article speculating about an anti-gravity UFO. I have not seen the package, but articles I recall seeing did not report the 8000 ft climb. When the report is issued, I will be interested to see what it contains, particularly since my wife lost a cousin on that flight...

I'd love to hear what you think once you do see the report. Sorry about your wife's cousin! I hope I didn't stir up some old pain. /w3tcompact/icons/sad.gif

Bob

Bob_Trevithick · Mar 15, 2002

If they want guns too, that's fine with me, so long as they don't get complacent about the doors!

This is very true!! Being proactive (the doors) is much better then being reactive (gun or any other defensive weapon)

The comment about being proactive reminds me of something a fellow programmer pointed out a while back.. he made a couple of interesting observations, I thought. I'm wondering what the people with flight experience would think of them...

1) Instead of just voice recorders and black boxes, why not install a $39 "cockpit cam"? Then we wouldn't have to guess what happened. It could recycle the tape so we'd always have say the last 20 or 30 minutes if we needed it later.

2) Why not have the airplane automatically, at the first hint of any problem, dial up the FAA and begin a V.90 data dump directly to them of all pertinent information? As the other guy said, then there wouldn't be these endless searches for the black box. Well, we would still want the black box if the FAA answered "Please wait for the next available attendant..."

Bob

Wingnut · Mar 15, 2002

... probably because doing anymore than the infamous Black Boxes would do 2 things:
1) give people "evidence" of how dangerous air travel is when the FAA's mandate is to do the opposite
2) force another cost (that stuff has to be bought and maintained) on the airlines, which they double and pass back to us.

By the way ... did you see the news report yesterday re the Egypt Air flight? They're releasing the official report and everything is laid on the co-pilot based on the black box data. He kicked off the a/p and dropped the nose.

Wing(and a prayer)nut
Heck ... we've got enough wasted costs right now ... what are we now paying .. an extra $4 per leg for "security" (excuse me while I barf) run by the government. The same government that currently has banks writing off $62 million in bad credit cards debts from cards they've issued in the Pentagon? Give me a break!