RE: Re: OT: Terrorism

["Mick Furlong" <dorsai@xxxxxxx>]

> > I still think totally secure flight decks is a 'reasonable'
solution and
> > doesn't suffer from hacking or any other kind of outside
interference.
>
> There is no such thing as totally secure. Any link that allowed
control of
> the plane from the ground is susceptible to being hacked and can be
> interefered with. I do not see it "solving" anything, it
merely creates
> problems.

If you read my email properly you will see that at no point do I recommend
any control from the ground I merely suggest securing the flight deck.

>
> > Nothing else needs to change just stop anyone but the flight crew
from
> > getting into the cockpit while the plane is in flight.
>
> Locking the door will not stop a plane being hijacked nor will it
> prevent a
> hijacker from killing passengers or potentially bringing the plane
down in
> any location of his choice on the current flight path even
> without access to
> the cockpit.

Yes quite correct....the target in this case was NOT on flight path
therefore the death and destruction would have been significantly LESS with
a locked flight deck
>
> How exactly do you address the issues of calls of nature and legally
> required breaks on long haul flights if the flight desk is locked at
all
> times? How do the flight crew get food and drink during these times?

Toilet/bed on the flight deck ...I think long haul flights have these
anyway, food could be delivered through a one way hatch or could be held on
the flight deck.

>
> > As a
> > comparison have
> > you ever seen a tube or train where the passengers could just
> stroll into
> > the drivers cab?
>
> You can't just "stroll" into a cockpit either. It has to be
arranged by a
> flight attendant with the pilot by telephone before he even unlocks
the
> door.
>
> It is possible to arrange to be in the cab of a train.

As another poster has pointed out I don't give a damn about being on the
flight deck ...safety comes first


Mick
>