RE: Re: OT: Terrorism

["Mark Hetherington \(egroups\)" <mark.egroups@xxxxxxx>]

> Well I can see we are not going to agree here Mark.

Quite possibly :)

> The fact is that
> thousands have died
> who would still be alive today if the flight decks had
> been secured.
> The technology does exist and is reliable to secure
> the flight
> deck without causing any other risks to normal flight and only a minor
> inconvenience.

But every passenger and crew member would probably have died. It is better
to save everybody than to try and value some lives over others. Your
solution for reasons I mention later does not guarantee anybody's safety
but
does pretty much ensure a death sentence to those not "protected"
by the
locked door.

It is not fact that a locked flight deck would have changed anything. Until
the details surrounding the hijacks are known, it is unreasonable to assert
that a locked flight deck would have changed anything. For all we know, the
flight deck could have been locked when the hijack began as is standard
procedure on many flights today. Assuming it was locked, it is in the first
instance the unlocking of the door which undermines this assertion that a
locked door would stop anything.

A locked door is after all merely a locked door and not undefeatable. Given
the determination and dedication of the hijackers and their complete defeat
of whatever security was at the airport, I doubt a locked door would have
been a great hurdle for them.

Using your own example of the security of money, I direct you look into how
these systems are defeated. It is rare, but more common than aeroplane
hijacks which shows that even the incredible security to safeguard money is
not completely secure.

Finally, there is the obvious change in direction that any mythical
undefeatable locked door would create such as the flight crew itself being
the "hijackers".

So hopefully even if we disagree, you can follow the reasons I do not see
any advantage whatsoever with the locked flight deck. It doesn't fix
anything. The problem remains. The risk remains. Safety is not increased.
The loss of that limited freedom to view to cockpit on request and
acceptance by the captain, is merely an ancillary action, but is an
unnecessary restriction without advantage.

> I agree that the terrorists and their plot should have been
> identified before they even got on the planes, but they weren't.

No, and this is something that is simple and cheap to address. The systems
already exist and are already in place. They ensure the safety of everybody
on the aircraft and anyone in any potential flight path. This failure along
with some concerns I have wrt the actions of ATC and other aviation
services
must be addressed and immediately. Again the ATC thing is something I will
avoid rather than discuss at length right now.

> You don't
> want to see measures introduced to prevent such actions in future, I
do.

Not what I said. It is the degree of measures that concerns me since
anything implemented in direct response to this is to some degree an
admission of weakness. Concentrating on this one off event as a long term
solution also still leaves open all other avenues for terrorist activity
which will not be prioritised if we are spending all our time and efforts
concentrating on this one tactic.

Treating the effect will not fix the problem. Removing the cause will.

The type of measures taken must be effective, appropriate and as
unobtrusive
as possible to our everyday life. As I said in a previous email, where
would
you draw the line, since I guess the most "secure" environment we
have known
was kind of undermined when the USSR collapsed :)

> I
> also support the removal of litter bins from the underground,

Actually I only half support this since the removal of litter bins has lead
to a litter problem and therefore a fire risk. This I would compare to
locking the flight deck. It did not really address the actual problem
merely
removed a perceived problem. The possibility of "secure" litter
bins was
ignored but would have been more effective and avoided the ongoing problem.

> the
> compulsory
> use of seat belts, crash helmets on motorbikes and various other
invasions
> of my 'rights' in return for safety.

Seat belts are proven to reduce injury and death in accidents, as with
motorcycle helmets. Locking doors on aeroplanes is not proven to assist in
safety and I see a number of ways in which it removes safety while it would
be relatively easy to defeat.

> You state that there are much better
> ways to prevent future occurrences, what are they?

See below.

> And finally the
> terrorists DID defeat aip*plane* security, they got control of the
flight
> deck,

Eventually but this is more effect than cause...

> they also defeated air*port* security by carrying (basic) weapons on
> board.

Which is the root of the problem. Without the weapons, the planes would
likely have remained under the captain's control. I played with simple
sensors at university (and cheap given the Uni paid for them) which when
added to current detection mechanisms would be more effective at spotting
certain potential weapons. However, improving the current systems might not
be required, just using the existing ones would have gone a great way
towards preventing this.

> However I would assume that a person skilled in unarmed
> combat would
> be a serious threat on a plane without any actual weapon so there
> has to be
> security on board in my view.

Fine, put security staff on board. I could live with that. It would also be
of assistance to the flight crew in the event of problem passengers which
currently the flight crew have to deal with. We have security officers in
airports and often at train and tube stations. Put a couple qualified guys
on board the aircraft permanently that are purely there to protect and
assist.

The terrorists appeared to be working in groups of 3-6 and armed, not
merely
relying on any unarmed combat skill. A solitary person taking a plane
purely
with unarmed combat is quite unlikely given the restrictive space. Weapons
are much better tools for the confined space of an aircraft and as a
deterrent against "would be heroes". These weapons could actually
have been
carried onto the plane legally (if under 4" IIRC) even if security had
checked for them!

The failure at the airport is what allowed this to happen. The low level of
security on planes is often due to the amount of security and screening at
the airport. The failure was largely due to it being a domestic flight,
however I would have thought that interstate (or transcontinental) would
have been subject to more stringent security checks than intra state but
this was not the case.

Mark.

P.S. While about to send this email, I just heard on Sky News that
"plain
clothes" security will be on board all aircraft and that security
checks for
internal flights will be made. Also knives are now banned. There are also a
number of other airport security measure which *should* have always been in
place, now being implemented in order to reopen US airspace.
AFAIK, locked flight decks has not been mentioned.