Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 14 of 14
  1. #11
    Originally posted by Jedi Clint
    Even if they could communicate with the pilots, the pilots would not fly the plane into a building because the hijackers are threatening to injure or kill passengers.
    But hijackers aren't always going to fly into buildings. They might just want to hold the people for ransom. If they were planning to crash the plane they were gonna get killed anyway if the pilots didn't cooperate.

  2. #12
    It seems that what is happening to that once you are on a plane your life is secondary to people on the ground. Bush has given orders to Air Force Generals that if any plane appears to be threatening anybody on the ground then they are allowed to shoot it down. The passengers on the plane would just be written off as "acceptable losses." Does anyone else see the inherent problems in this? I don't want some 'yes-man' old fart, who has never known anything but military life, deciding which American citizens should be sacrificed for the greater good.

    Kind of makes you want to swear off airplanes forever.
    Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split. - Robert E. Howard

  3. #13
    If flying means that one must accept the possibility that they could be taken hostage, or be shot down if the plane they're on becomes a threat to civilians on the ground, then they can either accept those circumstances or take an alternative form of transportation. I am not sure who should decide whether to destroy a plane that is going to be used as a weapon of mass destruction similar to the way planes were used on Sept. 11th, but the reality of doing nothing to stop this from happening has cemented the need for open dialogue on the subject.

    I don't know what protocol for dealing with a hijacker's demands dictates. There are people who make it their business to know.

    There are also co-pilots who are capable of taking over if the pilot becomes incapacitated. I have seen no reason not to secure the door to the cabin.

    It all comes down to increasing security at ground level in an effort to negate use of protocol once a plane is in the air.
    Last edited by Jedi Clint; 09-27-2001 at 11:29 PM.
    ubi mel ibi apes

  4. #14


    I think that locked secure cockpit doors, more air marshals, and an increased seizure in keychain knives, box cutters, toe-nail clippers, etc. may be somewhat effective, but terrorists as they always do, will find some new way to adapt to all these security changes. Whether it's having a remote controlled device that will take over the control of the planes (a scary thought, not sure if it could exist though), or something else, terrorists will find some new way.

    The problem with these changes is that they are addressing the last breaches of security on September 11. Soon enough, these uncivilized people will find a new hole, exploit it, and then again we'll adapt. But we have to try to be a step ahead of the terrorists, however hard that may be, to prevent any more senseless tragedy.
    "The dark side clouds everything. Impossible to see, the future is. But this I am sure of - do their duty the Jedi will." --Yoda from Attack of the Clones.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO