USA Continues to Abuse Innocent UK Tourists

Cyrus Afzali wrote:

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 17:30:54 GMT, "Frank F. Matthews"
wrote:

Cyrus Afzali wrote:

On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 23:12:28 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:

snip

As much as I dislike our current administration, the most frustrating
thing to point out is no amount of screening would have prevented 9/11
because the hijackers didn't bring on anything that was then illegal.
If someone's determined to overtake an airliner and has the manpower
to do it, they don't need a lot of weapons. 9/11 showed that.

snip

I would disagree with the lesson you draw from 9/11. While they may not
need a lot of weapons they do need sufficient ones to control the
passengers. Unfortunately on 9/11 that task was performed by the
government, airlines, and flight crew.

It was performed by box-cutter wielding individuals. When you're in a
restricted environment with several others banding together to pose a
threat, it doesn't take a lot of weaponry to take over the plane. The
fact that they weren't able to have counterfeit weapons on board
speaks to the fact that the system in place then worked.

I still think that the folks who created the "cooperate" advice
contributed to the takeover. It's really hard to control a plane full
of folks with the cockpit locked and frightened passengers.

People forget that often speed is valued before everything else. Prior
to 9/11, people were complaining about delays on the runways because
of what had been a major escalation in air traffic at major airports
like LGA, especially in regional jets. They weren't thinking about
security then.

In addition they need sufficient force to gain entry to the flight deck.
Here again they were aided by the same group.

9/11 was caused not by lax security but by faulty assumptions on what
hijackers would do. Assumptions that were historically plausible but
fatally flawed.


There's no way you can ever completely game and prepare for each
possible scenario -- at least if you're going to be expected to come
up with a viable solution and fund it. The thing you need to do is
come up with procedures deemed appropriate and follow them.

The major flaw that I see in the current flight security is the arming
of flight crews. A flaw in that it may tempt them to open up the flight
deck thinking that a gun will give them control.


I'm not for arming of flight crews, either, because they're in the
worst vantage point. With anything that would happen taking place
behind them, I just don't see how they'd be able to efficiently react.

Having been in NYC for years, I have to say I always thought it
strange that we have 'round-the-clock protection with armed federal
agents at the city's main post office, at all federal court houses and
office buildings, etc. If they're worth that and get the job done
effectively, the nation's air travel system should have been worth
nothing less.

People who complain about bureaucracy have a point, but I think most
people don't care as long as there's effective operation. Most
Americans don't realize their federal buildings were more
well-protected on 9/11 -- with a law enforcement agency who has that
sole purpose -- than was their air travel system.

Cyrus Afzali wrote:

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 17:30:54 GMT, "Frank F. Matthews"
wrote:

Cyrus Afzali wrote:

On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 23:12:28 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:

snip

As much as I dislike our current administration, the most frustrating
thing to point out is no amount of screening would have prevented 9/11
because the hijackers didn't bring on anything that was then illegal.
If someone's determined to overtake an airliner and has the manpower
to do it, they don't need a lot of weapons. 9/11 showed that.

snip

I would disagree with the lesson you draw from 9/11. While they may not
need a lot of weapons they do need sufficient ones to control the
passengers. Unfortunately on 9/11 that task was performed by the
government, airlines, and flight crew.

It was performed by box-cutter wielding individuals. When you're in a
restricted environment with several others banding together to pose a
threat, it doesn't take a lot of weaponry to take over the plane. The
fact that they weren't able to have counterfeit weapons on board
speaks to the fact that the system in place then worked.

I still think that the folks who created the "cooperate" advice
contributed to the takeover. It's really hard to control a plane full
of folks with the cockpit locked and frightened passengers.

People forget that often speed is valued before everything else. Prior
to 9/11, people were complaining about delays on the runways because
of what had been a major escalation in air traffic at major airports
like LGA, especially in regional jets. They weren't thinking about
security then.

In addition they need sufficient force to gain entry to the flight deck.
Here again they were aided by the same group.

9/11 was caused not by lax security but by faulty assumptions on what
hijackers would do. Assumptions that were historically plausible but
fatally flawed.


There's no way you can ever completely game and prepare for each
possible scenario -- at least if you're going to be expected to come
up with a viable solution and fund it. The thing you need to do is
come up with procedures deemed appropriate and follow them.

The major flaw that I see in the current flight security is the arming
of flight crews. A flaw in that it may tempt them to open up the flight
deck thinking that a gun will give them control.


I'm not for arming of flight crews, either, because they're in the
worst vantage point. With anything that would happen taking place
behind them, I just don't see how they'd be able to efficiently react.

Having been in NYC for years, I have to say I always thought it
strange that we have 'round-the-clock protection with armed federal
agents at the city's main post office, at all federal court houses and
office buildings, etc. If they're worth that and get the job done
effectively, the nation's air travel system should have been worth
nothing less.

People who complain about bureaucracy have a point, but I think most
people don't care as long as there's effective operation. Most
Americans don't realize their federal buildings were more
well-protected on 9/11 -- with a law enforcement agency who has that
sole purpose -- than was their air travel system.

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 12:41:00 GMT, Cyrus Afzali
wrote:

[ Snip ]

One reason why that is the case: why are cockpit doors locked on
flights?

A: Because a disgruntled employee of USAir decided to shoot the
cockpit crew on a flight within California back in the 1980's.

Mr McDonald would be well advised to invest in a clue.

Doug McDonald

Malc.

They weren't commonly locked in the U.S. until after 9/11. In fact,
you'd routinely see open cockpit doors on U.S. carriers until then.

False. (At least for aircraft with cabin crew; things like a J31 with
19 passengers didn't *have* a cockpit door...)

Have you bought that clue yet?

Malc.

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 08:57:24 -0500, Olivers
wrote:


Akshulee, wasn't the incident to which Malc (?) referred aboard a PSA
flight?

No.

PSA had been acquired by USAir by then.

TMO

Malc.

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 08:57:24 -0500, Olivers
wrote:


Akshulee, wasn't the incident to which Malc (?) referred aboard a PSA
flight?

No.

PSA had been acquired by USAir by then.

TMO

Malc.

On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 12:18:17 GMT, Cyrus Afzali
wrote:


They weren't commonly locked in the U.S. until after 9/11. In fact,
you'd routinely see open cockpit doors on U.S. carriers until then.

False. (At least for aircraft with cabin crew; things like a J31 with
19 passengers didn't *have* a cockpit door...)

Have you bought that clue yet?

No, but I've bought courtesy and decency, something you'd do well to
possess. But then again, if you don't have it yet, the hopes of
acquiring it are very, very, very remote.

As for the original issue, my statement was still largely correct. The
vast majority of aircraft have cockpit doors and they were almost
always open before 9/11.

You are wrong. No matter how often you repeat your false claims, you
will still be wrong.

Here's a _free_ clue: how did the hijackers get the cockpit doors
open?

*IF* your claim was vaguely correct, the answer would have been "by
turning the handle". Since it isn't, the answer is far nastier.

(Prior to 2001, many FC cabin crew would wear the key to the cockpit
on their wrists; the goal was to prevent nutcases wandering onto the
flight deck, not to prevent determined atatcks).

Look up how many flights out of major city centers are performed on
the type of planes you cite.

Exactly. Hence your claim was false.

Not the majority by any stretch.

Exactly.

Now, go play in traffic.

Wait one, didn't you just write "No, but I've bought courtesy and
decency"?

So that would make you a liar!

As well as wrong.

Malc.

On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 12:18:17 GMT, Cyrus Afzali
wrote:


They weren't commonly locked in the U.S. until after 9/11. In fact,
you'd routinely see open cockpit doors on U.S. carriers until then.

False. (At least for aircraft with cabin crew; things like a J31 with
19 passengers didn't *have* a cockpit door...)

Have you bought that clue yet?

No, but I've bought courtesy and decency, something you'd do well to
possess. But then again, if you don't have it yet, the hopes of
acquiring it are very, very, very remote.

As for the original issue, my statement was still largely correct. The
vast majority of aircraft have cockpit doors and they were almost
always open before 9/11.

You are wrong. No matter how often you repeat your false claims, you
will still be wrong.

Here's a _free_ clue: how did the hijackers get the cockpit doors
open?

*IF* your claim was vaguely correct, the answer would have been "by
turning the handle". Since it isn't, the answer is far nastier.

(Prior to 2001, many FC cabin crew would wear the key to the cockpit
on their wrists; the goal was to prevent nutcases wandering onto the
flight deck, not to prevent determined atatcks).

Look up how many flights out of major city centers are performed on
the type of planes you cite.

Exactly. Hence your claim was false.

Not the majority by any stretch.

Exactly.

Now, go play in traffic.

Wait one, didn't you just write "No, but I've bought courtesy and
decency"?

So that would make you a liar!

As well as wrong.

Malc.

Malcolm Weir wrote:

So that would make you a liar!

As well as wrong.


Settle down Malc.

--
Best
Greg