RE: Re: OT: Terrorism

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

> NO! I *never* suggested that either of the pilots should at any time
have
> control of the aircraft removed from them.

Somebody else did I think as an addition to your original proposal :)

> Quite the contrary in
> fact. - the
> technology should be employed to absolutely ensure that *only* the
> authorised flight crew can fly the aircraft, *NOT* some swarthy
> hijacker in
> the pilot's seat. - the controls should quite simply refuse to respond
to
> commands from anyone other than the pilot or the co-pilot,

There is so far no guarantee that it was not the actual pilots forced to
fly
the plane into the buildings. Until the black boxes are recovered and
analysed and more information on the overheard onboard conversation is
released, it is not safe to assume that it was not the pilot with a knife
at
his throat or maybe the threat of a guy at his wife's house holding the
kids
until he did what he was told that actually flew into the towers or the
pentagon.

It is possible in the right scenario, to circumnavigate the very measures
you suggest. Although it is looking increasingly like a couple of hours on
MS Flight Simulator and a video were all it took to become a commercial jet
pilot capable of this, there are the finances and resources available to
these terrorist groups to get through any security systems employed on the
flight deck to attempt to limit control to one or two individuals.

Finally there is the failsafe that *must* exist in any aviation system.
There are a number of scenarios in which ground control could lose contact
with an aircraft. Combine this with a possibility of system failure for
authorisation for manual control of the aeroplane and there is an unknown
safety risk both to passengers/crew and some point on the ground.

> or in
> the extreme
> event that both of these people are incapacitated, taken over by a
> ground-based flight crew

I mention in another message some of the potential problems with a ground
based flight crew. Even the existence of the system is open to misuse. If a
ground crew can take control of an aircraft in flight, someone else can.

> or by an on-board automated system which merely
> makes the plane divert immediately to the nearest available airport
and
> land. I believe that the technology to do probably about 90% of that
is
> already in the planes.... certainly there are auto-pilot systems
> automatic
> navigation systems, and automatic landing systems, what more need
> there be?

> Having read Mark's (very long) post, he makes some very good and
sensible
> points, and offers wise counsel against the dangers of
"knee-jerk"
> reactions.

Thank you. :)

> However, I just cannot agree to the notion that
> because you can
> never guarantee 100% success at preventing terrorist actions, and just
> because on balance terrorist actions are (until now) very rare
> ocurrences,
> that you should simply not bother to do anything at all,

Not what I said. Obviously it cannot be ignored as an issue, but the
failings highlighted by the attack would not have been fixed by locking the
flight deck or automatic override of a plane's flight. They could have been
prevented. Merely by implementing existing systems and tightening of some,
it would be relatively simple to have prevented this problem ever having
happened.

> and just
> carry on
> with "business as usual" and not even try to make it
difficult for them!

Business as usual is the exact tactic that needs to be employed. Making
things difficult for them is an obvious course of action that will be
employed but it should not be at the expense of our way of life or the act
of terrorism has succeeded in it's aim. It is interesting that the Mayor of
New York is keen to follow this same tactic by encouraging people to go
back
to work across the city and not let the terrorists see their fear which
would be seen as a successful action.

Our history is strewn with scenarios where a lack of reaction has worked
against attack and is the source of a number of (I forget the term...
"sayings" is the closest I can think of) such as "getting
back on the horse
that threw you", and the whole show no fear to lions and dogs when
faced
with one which seems hostile. Despite the myth associated with some of
these
'old wives tales', the overriding principle proves sound time and time
again.

> The simple fact remains that some of the technologies that have been
> discussed here in the last day or two *COULD* have prevented
> these disasters
> and the massive untold loss of life that has resulted. - It has been
> suggested that the final death toll could be more than the entire loss
of
> life by both sides in the Vietnam war...

To be honest, the loss of life, albeit extremely tragic, is not the salient
point. An actual accident resulting in a plane flying into one of the
towers
(as was thought when the first plane hit) would have had a very similar
effect and caused similar loss of life. Had the aim of the terrorist been
to
kill people, they could have chosen flights later in the day when the
buildings were at capacity not the much lower usage that the 8.30-9am slot
gave. There was the potential to kill or at least attempt to kill in excess
of 100,000 people. I am suggesting they gave no thought to how many or few
they would kill since the point was not about people's lives.

As tragic as the event is, such huge losses are hard to empathise with
unless you know someone killed there. Personally for me, it was the loss of
Fire-Fighter's lives which made me consider the personal losses since my
"best friend" has recently started training for that very job and
could
easily be placed in a similar situation.

Statistics are not enough to justify unwarranted and unnecessary and
potentially insecure or useless implementations no matter how tragic the
loss.

> Sorry Mark, but that takes terrorism out of the realms of
"minority"
> activity.

No it doesn't. No matter whether the death toll is 10, 100, or 10,000, the
number of terrorists actually fell during this suicide run by at least 12
and likely more, so the minority is even smaller even though very slightly
so. There were likely 10 times that number die worldwide by natural causes,
an equal number from crimes or accidents. The number creams tragic, but
does
not alter the fact that terrorism is employed by only a very small
minority.

>
> To be frank, I have never been on the flight deck of a plane in
> flight, and
> I don't feel the slightest hard done by because of it. I see no reason
at
> all why I should regard it as my "right" as part of my
personal
> freedom to
> do so, and I do not feel in any way less secure or that my
> personal freedoms
> have been abused by not doing so, or by not having the captain
> come and talk
> to me in person.

If the captain comes and talks to you in person, it is likely you are to be
arrested at landing :)

I never claimed it as a right, many people rarely take advantage of what
they can do if they wish, but the removal of the freedom to do so is not a
solution to the problem and is a slow degradation to the freedom and way of
life we enjoy today.

As an "amateur" pilot, it interests me to talk to the crew and
see the
flight deck. But everyone could if they wished visit the crew. It is one of
those things about air travel that is unique and in the same way I
personally like visiting them, they are often more than happy to have
someone drop by for a short while to break up the monotony of long boring
commercial flights where they are often doing little more than babysitting
a
computer system.

It is similar to going to a Fire Station on an open day and getting to
"play" with a fire engine. A simple thing and not even that high
tech, but
seeing the things that are there to protect you and are often behind the
scenes is of interest to many.

Most of these things are not advertised as a right or an attraction since
not everybody is interested or cares. But to remove the ability without
benefit seems more than a little pointless.

> One can only begin to imagine what those poor souls on those planes
must
> have thought, but I would like to think that if I were in such a
> position,
> knowing that death was a certainty, I would be considerably more
> anguished
> if I also had the certain knowledge that tens of thousands of
> people on the
> ground were also going to suffer and die.

This is an assumption that could well be incorrect. What little I have seen
of what was heard by people on the ground, they did not know what was going
to happen or even that "death was a certainty" let alone the
potential
problems on the ground. I imagine that as with anyone under threat, their
thoughts were for themselves and their friends and family, particularly
given the calls made from the planes. If they knew they were going to die
anyway, why did they not try and likely succeed in overpowering their
attackers?

What bits have been released of the "overheard" in flight
conversation
suggest that the terrorists told the pilot he would not be harmed. If this
same statement was made to all passengers, then they would have no idea
that
they or anyone on the ground would be affected.

> I sincerely believe
> that if given
> that awful choice and then presented with a self-destruct button, most
> people would elect to press it.

You are assuming knowledge that current information implies did not exist.
As I said somewhere else today, adding a self destruct button is as good as
building a bomb for a terrorist.

Personally I would think not only of the people on the ground but the x
passengers + y crew I would be murdering by pressing the button. If I
choose
to risk or take my life fine, but I do not have the right to take the lives
of others for *any* reason. Since I doubt there would be time or
opportunity
for a committee to decide, I would likely try to overpower the attacker(s)
and hope that others might follow my example and help out of choice. I
would
rather save everyone than kill some to save others. Although I guess I may
be required to kill the attackers to save the passengers and crew so I
guess
I need to add the words innocents in there somewhere.

There is also the natural instinct of self preservation, which is likely
the
reason a number of people chose a multi storey dive rather than facing the
fire in an attempt to live. If this instinct within us can make us choose a
deadly jump over fire as a chance to survive, it is unlikely to let us
press
a button that we know will kill us.

> I'll stop now, this whole concept is too depressing....

It is. It should never have happened. Unfortunately it did. Given the lack
of security systems they have been describing on the news the last half
hour
or so, to be perfectly honest it is amazing it did not happen sooner.
Hopefully the new measures will be both enforced and strengthened and we
can
all rest easy on a flight.

The strangest thing so far is that this, likely the single most effective
terrorist act the world has ever known, currently goes unclaimed.

Mark.