h a l f b a k e r y"This may be bollocks, but it's lovely bollocks."
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
(This isn't my idea, but a friend of mine's. He doesn't have the internet, so I'm posting for him)
If planes were to be created with divided cabins, so that to enter the cockpit you would enter from a seperate door from which you would enter the cabin, a physical barrier would exist between the
cabin and the flight deck. Two way radios could be used by the pilots and the stewards/stewardesses for communication. In the event of a terrorist attack or other such malfunction, knockout gas could be released into the cabin. The terrorists or other infringing persons would awaken in a jail cell, everyone else would arrive at their destination safely. A waiver would have to be signed by passengers before boarding for safety reasons.
[link]
|
| |
This brings up a fundimental paradox with this type of security problem: the more secure you make the cabin from intrusion, the more desireable it will be for would-be terrorists to infiltrate the crew of the airplane, given your approach and such a breach, it would be impossible for any of the passengers or crew (outside the cabin) to do anything about it. Unfortunately, there really is no absolute solution. |
|
| |
Are you saying a cabin divided will fall, JP? |
|
| |
Peter, it wasn't a separate idea, but I also recall the discussion of physically separate cabins, including a lengthy debate about whether a hijacker could still command the plane by threatening passengers, and whether he'd have to communicate directly with the ground to influence the pilot, etc. |
|
| |
I don't think crackriot has proposed multiple separate passenger cabins, merely a pilot cabin separate from the passenger cabin. |
|
| |
Now, the waver *is* new to the halfbakery, but I've seen plenty of wavers at airports before boarding, so I think this is baked, too. |
|
| |
During the 9/11 aftermath, I recall having read news articles about air security issues. A separate external entrance for the cockpit (not connected to the cabin) has been a commonly tossed-about option for quite some time. |
|
| |
If an accident occurred in the cockpit and somehow rendered the crew incapable of flying, there'd be no way to get a brave passenger into the cockpit to sit at the controls and land the plane, instructed by nervous, smoking ATCs (who will all slap hands and cheer at touch-down). |
|
| |
I think I could land a plane in such an emergency, though I bet on most flights there's at least one person more qualified than I am. |
|
| |
with the instrumented landing systems in place at most modern airports today, even that isn't a problem anymore. the plane is basically controlled by a computer during the entire approach, and the pilot is there mostly for backup. and to hit the brakes once the plane's on the ground. |
|
| |
as for the original idea, i with pottedstu, we've been been there already. now what i would like to see is "cryo-sleep airlines" where every passenger is in suspended animation for the entire flight. in separate, locked, cubicles. kind of like a covered ice-cube tray. |
|
| |
If they were in cryo-sleep, the passengers could just go Fed-Ex. |
|
| |
Also, I think it is relatively few airliners whose flight-directors actually flare and land the aircraft. The final moments are usually flown by the pilot. Arguably, those are some of the most important moments. |
|
| |
My walking to your house, UB, would not be better for my fitness levels, nor safer. The Pacific is a big stretch especially when traversed diagonally. |
|
| |
I wonder if there are any statistics on whether walking really is safer than flying on a commercial airline. I'm not so sure I'd believe that assertion without data to back it up, especially if you include jogging in the definition of "walking." |
|
| |
Well, no matter what you do, someone will always find a way around it. If the terrorists can get a small plane of their own, fly along side the airline, they could get into the plane from the outside then (yes difficult, and extremely dangerous, but these terrorists have no lives and are willing to die. Also, it is possible to do this, so long as they have a way to open the door to the plane from the outside [possibly cutting torches]). Also, you could have another crazy terrorist with bombs for shoes. What then? The simple answer is strip searching. Every person (No, I'm not being perverted, this would be the only answer) would have to strip search, while their luggage is examined. Yes, people would claim it to be a violation of their rights, but if you feel that you have something that would embaress you, try driving or taking a boat. There are other means of transportation. No offense crackriot, fishbone. |
|
| |
[Salty Ham] I'd have to say that this rant is amongst some of your worst. Shoes? Cutting torches from small airplanes? Jet planes generally fly at an altitude that is too high for other types of planes to fly at, so unless the terrorists fly via jet plane, they'll never make it. In addition, they would have to perform all of their tasks mechanically, from within the aircraft, for the pressure at such an altitude would kill a human being. That is why jets are pressurized. (Jets actually shrink when they fly, interestingly enough). Also, the jets fly at such a rate of speed that to approach the plane with any type of mechanized "arm" (as I envision it) would be impossible. I'll take your fishbone, along with the knowledge that you are an idiot. |
|
| |
[CrackRiot]: "Jets actually shrink when they fly..." |
|
| |
Hmm...never heard that before. I have heard, though, something which seems contrary to your claim: that the Concorde stretches about 11 inches while in supersonic flight, presumably due to the metal heating from air friction. |
|
| |
Of course, I haven't verified either claim. |
|
| |
I would think that if anyone tried to board an airliner from a jet plane the pilot of the airliner would notice and fly away... unless the plane the terrorist have is radar-invisible. Halty Sam has been watching to many movies! (Namely "Executive Decision") |
|
| |
//Yes, people would claim it to be a violation of their rights, but if you feel that you have something that would embaress you, try driving or taking a boat. There are other means of transportation.// |
|
| |
As far as I am aware, there is no "right to fly" on a commercial aircraft. Flying is a conditional privilege one must pay for, thus subject to whatever rules the airline and/or regulating agencies wish to impose (within the bounds of legality and, I presume, decency). |
|
| |
//Jets actually shrink when they fly...// |
|
| |
Actually, with internal air pressure so much higher than external, the tendancy would be to expand at altitude. As I recall, this is what led to the disastrous mid-air disintegrationm of the first DH Comet jet airliners- metal fatigue caused by expansion and contraction of the too-thin aircraft skin, compounded by cracks originating around the rectangular window openings (the reason all subsequent pressurized aircraft windows have smallish, rounded windows). |
|
| |
//a way to open the door from the outside [possibly cutting torches]// |
|
| |
Cutting torches can't cut aluminum. Maybe a saw? |
|
| |
// Cutting torches can't cut aluminum // |
|
| |
They can if your definition of 'cut' is 'blast giant splattery
holes through'. An oxy-acetylene rig will go through the
skin, frame, andor interior fittings of any airliner I've ever
been on, it just won't do it neatly. |
|
| |