Why do the cockpits have to be accessible from the cabin?

Post #8,570 by mmoffitt 9/12/01 11:19:18 AM Reply	Why do the cockpits have to be accessible from the cabin? I know that sounds naive, but suppose there were two pressurized areas of the plane? Pilots/First Officers/Flight Engineers go up one ramp, passengers, flight attendants go up another. Wouldn't be foolproof, but might add a few seconds to a takeover. Probably was cheaper to make them the way they are constructed, (and few doors mean better aerodynamics, I suppose).
Post #8,573 by addison 9/12/01 11:25:00 AM Reply	Lots of reasons. People need to go to and from the flight deck. Sure, that can be fixed, somewhat. Partially for convienience. Longer flights actually change flight crews (taking 2 with them) - how many do you segregate, and where? Large part of it is weight - each ounce costs $200k a year in fuel cost for an airliner) Plus, sometimes, they gotta go.... Sometimes the Captain is needed in the back to make a determination - or possibly in flight, to examine systems to troubleshoot a problem. Plus, its also possible to come up through most of the cockpits from the bottom (most planes have the capability to do straight down, and look at the front landing gear). Addison
Post #8,580 by mmoffitt 9/12/01 11:40:15 AM Reply	Most of that could be fixed. >>Plus, sometimes, they gotta go.... Here's a solution ;-) [link\|http://www.sportys.com/acb/showdetl.cfm?\|http://www.sportys....howdetl.cfm?]&DID=19&Product_ID=297&CATID=96 >>Sometimes the Captain is needed in the back to make a determination Let somebody else (maybe a "Cabin Captain"?) make that call. But I honestly do not believe that anything we do will have any impact. We might be able to make it harder, but given the limits our populace will place on lack of convenience, I don't believe we can truly block this from happening. Somebody asked Colin Powell if he had any information about planned future attacks and he said he didn't. I thought, "Did you have any information 2 days ago about what happened yesterday?" Thanks, Mikem
Post #8,596 by addison 9/12/01 12:14:12 PM Reply	Fixing is relative. So you fix that, and something else comes up. Maybe they figure how to hijack the actual flight system from the back. Yes, you can find a way to do a lot of that. But it might not matter. Think about how many antiaircraft missiles there are in "unsavory" hands. Think about 2-3 of those being fired at several major airports during a rush season, at the same time. Sure, you can prevent that. But you're starting to describe Air Force 1. Its like the uncrashable airplane. They've got 'em, but they don't fly. I don't believe we can truly block this from happening. Its really not a convience thing. That doesn't help - but its always going to be possible to do something horrific. The best you can do is try to cut the chances down. Addison
Post #8,614 by marlowe 9/12/01 1:10:54 PM Reply	Better a relative fix than an absolute abdication. Locks can be picked. Lock your door anyway. Firewalls can be hacked. Use a firewall anyway. Anti-terrorist precautions can be worked around. Take precautions anyway. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Post #8,617 by addison 9/12/01 1:17:28 PM Reply	Don't have airplanes. Then they can't crash.
Post #8,628 by marlowe 9/12/01 1:46:01 PM Reply	A slightly more moderate version. As I've suggested elsewhere: make ubiquitous broadband access happen. Then we can have telecommuting and telepresence, and cut way down on business travel. Just think. Instead of battling through to the airport, waiting for your flight, cramming yourself into that seat, hunting for your luggage, dragging your cramped up carcass to the rental agency, driving through an unfamiliar city to that damn trade show, you can just sit at home and log on. Chat with your local warm body in the booth via teleconferencing. Answer attendees' questions the same way. (They don't have to be there either.) Upload emergency software patches. And if you've got spare cycles, jump from one webcam to the next and take in the other exhibits. Which needn't all be in the same convention center, or even the same city, by the way. In fact, your local warm body and his display booth could be a thirty minute drive away. Of course it's not the same. That's the point. And it's way safer. And let's be honest. Vegas is way overrated. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Post #8,631 by addison 9/12/01 2:15:12 PM Reply	I'm glad you've decided to moderate some. But its still a long way from what's reasonable. Problem is, with anything you're having to gamble, to weigh risks. Nothing is 100% safe, or assured. So you have to weigh all those sorts of things. "Why don't they make cars that protect you in any crash" - "They do, they're called M1 Abrams Main Battle Tanks. They make a real mess of the pedestrians, though, and get about 2 gallons to the mile". So you have to draw the line somewhere. And if someone is motivated, if they've got the time and the resources, they will always find SOMEthing you missed, SOME weakness. Instead of battling through to the airport, waiting for your flight, cramming yourself into that seat, hunting for your luggage, Airport is 15 minutes away. Another 5 or so to chat, get the keys, load baggage, get prepped, fire up engine, get set up, and I'm away. I know where my luggage is, no problem. Of course it's not the same. That's the point. And it's way safer. And let's be honest. Vegas is way overrated. So I presume you're armoring your house tomorrow, and never leaving? Addison
Post #8,658 by mmoffitt 9/12/01 3:46:27 PM Reply	Concur on time. Ban everything except GA ;-)
Post #8,599 by marlowe 9/12/01 12:24:05 PM Reply	Lots of solutions Give the cockpit crew their own john in there. Have the backup crew sit in that section too. Just enlarge it a bit. As for going back and checking on things, let's just do without. Or settle for closed-circuit cameras. It's a tradeoff, and our priorities need to be adjusted now. Weight considerations? Now there's a false economy. How much does it cost the airlines to have their planes crash into skyscrapers? [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Post #8,601 by addison 9/12/01 12:35:01 PM Reply	There's no "justs" here. Give the cockpit crew their own john in there. Have the backup crew sit in that section too. Just enlarge it a bit. Ok. You do the work on that. And the certifications needed. See ya in a few years. As for going back and checking on things, let's just do without. Or settle for closed-circuit cameras. So give the stewardess, sorry, flight attendants a webcam so they can take it back and show things to the captain? "We've got smoke back here" "Well, stop moving the camera so much, its pixellating" It's a tradeoff, and our priorities need to be adjusted now. Bullshit. Our priorities need NOT to be adjusted in a kneejerk reaction. Hell, what you're proposing is currently impossible in the next 7-10 years, so that won't happen, but we need to carefully consider these things. But trust me, there's not a 'simple' solution to this. Addison
Post #8,616 by marlowe 9/12/01 1:15:50 PM Reply	Seven to ten years? We'd better get cracking then. No point in making that window of vulnerability any larger than it is already is. And while we're at it, let's sue the ass of whoever it was didn't start the ball rolling on this seven to ten years ago. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Post #8,618 by addison 9/12/01 1:18:46 PM Reply	Yep. And while we're at it, let's sue the ass of whoever it was didn't start the ball rolling on this seven to ten years ago. Just so you're willing to take responsibility for everything that happens 7-10 years from now that you didn't prevent. Addison
Post #8,621 by mmoffitt 9/12/01 1:23:13 PM Reply	OT: Kneejerk The biggest knee-jerking on this is the FAA closing all the non-controlled GA airports. What a crock!
Post #8,633 by addison 9/12/01 2:22:02 PM Reply	Not given the emergency. You don't know who's out there. You don't know what they're using. You don't know the next 172 or King Air isn't filled with people/explosives and are about to dive on Rescue workers, or go into local Federal buildings, blood banks, hospitals. Further, you've got a glimmer that there are pilots involved, and you don't want then getting away... In the first moments, first hours, its unsure how many planes are involved, how many people, what if this is, for instance, a foreign country starting a war... Its not that unreasonable to get everything out of the sky you're not SURE about. I didn't want to be up there yesterday, with the trigger-happy F-16s. But I tell you, I went out yesterday, and today, and you look up... No contrails. No planes anywhere. Shocking. Can't recall ever seeing that. Addison
Post #8,655 by mmoffitt 9/12/01 3:44:39 PM Reply	It is weird. Was at the airport yesterday and today (C62). Absolutely no noise on the radio. Dead silence - that was very wierd. We're all still grounded and I'm sorry, but the odds that a C172 could be loaded with explosives and make it anywhere from C62 are so remote as to be laughable.
Post #8,662 by addison 9/12/01 3:57:07 PM Reply	Not really. From a mailing list I'm on: "Subject: RE: FDC SPECIAL NOTICE The lockdown is not for air safety, it's to close avenues of escape. Here in Houston the automated briefing includes that VFR flights will be forced down by F-16's. That's a hell of a deal to force down private planes during peacetime... Since the FAA cannot authorize military actions, who's pulling the strings to keep me on the ground?" There were more targets - PRESUMably.. terrorists who didn't manage to get control... you want them down, in unfamilar territory, and not going anywhere. As to your C172, sure. But they're worried about "staged" attacks, and maybe the next stage is a small plane... Addison
Post #8,664 by Simon_Jester 9/12/01 3:59:32 PM Reply	most arrests too... There were more targets - PRESUMably.. terrorists who didn't manage to get control... you want them down, in unfamilar territory, and not going anywhere. 3 more in Boston (according to rumor/news report).
Post #8,669 by mmoffitt 9/12/01 4:20:16 PM Reply	So, what do we do? Just ban GA until we're sure no pilots are terrorists? You're never going to be able to do that.
Post #8,675 by addison 9/12/01 4:29:23 PM Reply	No. Just until the threat is under control. Like right now - the FBI is making arrests and grabbing people attempting to flee, apparently. Planes are starting to get back up, and GA will be released when the rest is. Addison
Post #8,676 by mmoffitt 9/12/01 4:30:59 PM Reply	You know something I don't? From AOPA: "There is no word yet on when general aviation flights might resume."
Post #8,686 by addison 9/12/01 4:45:34 PM Reply	Just the NOTAM. Right now the NOTAM has restricted landings and takeoffs. When that's removed, then so should all the GA restrictions. Addison
Post #8,689 by mmoffitt 9/12/01 4:56:42 PM Reply	Can you imagine the NOTAMs that'll be out shortly? Can't fly over New York, parts of PA, etc., etc., etc. All necessary, mind you. This could make for a very nasty, nasty. I can envision a new rule saying that all XC VFR flights have to have VFR flight plans filed. Hire a bunch more FSS employees to keep track of everybody. Maybe require radios and transponders for all aircraft flying 50 miles or greater from home airport. Ick, I hope none of this is occuring to anyone but me.
Post #8,691 by addison 9/12/01 5:05:19 PM Reply	That's not that unusual. Crash sites are usually protected. The VFR corridor in NYC will get closed, at least for a while. As to the flight plan, that's not likely to happen. Right now, all a flight plan is "I'm going from here to there and be there by this time" - if they don't hear different in an hour after that time, they start making phone calls. If they can't get hold of anybody, they start looking for wreckage. I think you're really talking about flight following - but ATC can't provide that to everybody, all the time. And there are a lot of areas where FF just can't follow you. I don't think GA will come out of this all that badly, really... it wasn't GA planes that were the problem. Addison
Post #8,704 by mmoffitt 9/12/01 5:47:58 PM Reply	I know what flight following is. I was talking about VFR flight plans. See, if I say I'm gonna be here at time X and I don't show, then I can be subject to penalties, suspension, etc. Now, if I've got my transponder on they could tell when I'm more than 5 miles off course if they were following me. Could be wrong but currently I think you have to request VFR flight following and its at their option. But if flight plans became mandatory along with transponders, (and, admittedly a hell of a lot more technology than exists today), then they could tell when I was somewhere I wasn't supposed to be. >>I don't think GA will come out of this all that badly, really... That's not an opinion shared by the half dozen or so old CFI's that hang around my airport. Being a newbie, maybe I'm under their influence too heavily ;-)
Post #8,720 by addison 9/12/01 6:37:45 PM Reply	OK Problem with requiring a flight plan - if Target A is 2 hours away, and I file a flight plan for Airport B 4 hours away.. plenty of time to be going the "wrong" way. I was talking about VFR flight plans. See, if I say I'm gonna be here at time X and I don't show, then I can be subject to penalties, suspension, etc. Check out what it takes to cross a ADIZ - that's really what you're talking about. I think you have to give them +- 10 minutes when you'll hit it - and you'd BETTER be right. Else you get to be escorted by armed fighters. Now, if I've got my transponder on they could tell when I'm more than 5 miles off course if they were following me. Could be wrong but currently I think you have to request VFR flight following and its at their option. Radar Advisories (Flight Following) is as workload permits (as you said). Big advantage to being under Flight Following is you're already in contact/cleared into D/C/B airspace if you're under it. But they don't always give advisories, I've had a couple planes near me, RDU didn't say anything. But if flight plans became mandatory along with transponders, (and, admittedly a hell of a lot more technology than exists today), then they could tell when I was somewhere I wasn't supposed to be. Yeah, but then they'd be more like IFR flight plans. I don't see that happening, not when Sport Pilot Certs are on the horizon. That's not an opinion shared by the half dozen or so old CFI's that hang around my airport. Being a newbie, maybe I'm under their influence too heavily ;-) They might not be wrong, but its not my impression. Especially GA out of uncontrolled airports. Nothing in GA had anything to do with this. Further, GA will get pushed more and more as the latest security craze makes it harder to get onto the plane, and people migrate to fractionals/own planes/owned planes. (I don't mind things being harder. I mind them being MINDLESSLY harder.) Addison
Post #8,622 by marlowe 9/12/01 1:24:54 PM Reply	Here's a question for you. With your habitual reaction to technical challenges, how is it you manage ever to get anything done? [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Post #8,634 by addison 9/12/01 2:25:27 PM Reply	The answer is: I usually get something done. Instead of just talking about it. I figure out what needs to be done, what's possible, and how do to it. In this case, I've got a lot more idea what's involved, obviously. You keep advancing "common sense" ideas that fail reality checks. I start with the reality check, and figure what's available to do. Your rules would create a whole new set of problems - but you blithely ignore those, and castigate people who have considered those, and others, and made a decision, as utter fools. I don't see you owning up to the problems your problem would create. Addison
Post #8,653 by marlowe 9/12/01 3:31:57 PM Reply	I blithely ignore nothing. Shame on you. The problems my solutions would create are greatly outweighed by the problems my solutions would solve. I offer solutions. You offer sarcasm. And about reality checks: you want a reality check? There's one in downtown Manhattan, and it's a doozy. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Post #8,656 by Simon_Jester 9/12/01 3:44:39 PM Reply	Emotions gentlemen.... Focus on the problem....not on attacking each other.
Post #8,667 by marlowe 9/12/01 4:11:06 PM Reply	But this is part of the problem. Namely, that there are people who won't make radical but necessary changes, because there'd be too much fuss and bother for everybody. What our society needs right now is more fuss and bother. We're going to have it either way, so it may as well be the productive kind. Shall we have creative destruction, or just plain destruction? [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Post #8,660 by addison 9/12/01 3:53:32 PM Reply	There's no shame attached to me. And quite frankly, fuck you for saying that. You don't have any idea of what it would require for your "ideas". They're not solutions. But screw that. They're better than nothing, right? The problems my solutions would create Which you are completely unaware of. So any statement you're making about their weight is completely bogus. I've told you about a lot of what that would take. You have BLITHELY ignored that, and said "so what, that's stupid, we should have done it before now". I offer solutions. You offer sarcasm. You offer knee-jerk reactions. Without ANY REGARD - YES ANY - to the PROBLEMS with them. Right now, your "solutions" are right on a par with the redneck I heard last night (ex-green beret) who wants to "Kill all dem a-hrabs". Sure, its a solution. Its got more than a few realistic problems with it. Don't you think its been considered before? Oh, just everybody else is an idiot, cept for you, and there's nothing wrong with your plan, no weaknesses whatsoever. You've got no idea of HOW MUCH testing is required, how many design decisions and regulations factor into that plane that was built by these idiots, maintained and run by idiots, and flown by idiots, but you're willing to "simply" rectify the situation. (I presume, since similar idiots built your car, and made safety concessions, and your house, and your computer, you're not going to use any of them) Of course, it was 'simple' to put in metal detectors and x-ray machines. You want something other than sarcasm? You've not earned anything else. You've shown some staggering ignorance and worship of same before, but this takes the fucking cake. Addison
Post #8,674 by mmoffitt 9/12/01 4:29:22 PM Reply	That's harsh. I don't have my ticket yet (like you do) but I do have a pretty damned good idea of what it takes to get an airworthiness certificate. And I'm sorry, but I don't think the idea of a split between cabin and cockpit is technically infeesible and would make hijacking more cumbersome. Apparently, the hijackers of one of the aircraft had to start killing flight attendents in the rear of the plane to "lure" the pilot (or first officer) out of the cockpit so they could get in. If the two compartments were physically separated, that "door" could not be opened and the hijackers would not have slammed an airliner into the ground. I'll admit my first post was before a rigorous review, but wtf? I'm not submitting a fscking STC to the FAA, I'm just posting an idea.
Post #8,684 by addison 9/12/01 4:42:33 PM Reply	It should be. He's spouting bullshit and insulting people who know more. I don't have my ticket yet (like you do) but I do have a pretty damned good idea of what it takes to get an airworthiness certificate. Not an AC - that's relatively easy. Certification in the first place. A mod like that will take years to make sure everything's right. And that's not counting all the different models of all the various planes. AND that there's no route around it (like through baggage and up into the cockpit, as most have a path). And then lest you forget, that if that modification has the HINT of causing a problem, the lawsuits and liability that will ensue... so more testing, more time. And that doesn't mean that THAT will be the solution. If the two compartments were physically separated, that "door" could not be opened and the hijackers would not have slammed an airliner into the ground. If - IF things happen like this again, then yes, you're right. Of course, you'd be talking about the roughtly 20 flight crew members who had heart or other problems last year, and had to leave the flight deck, and who would have likely died, instead. Sure. NOW we can say "But that would be less". Oh, and foreign aircraft - they don't have the same regulations. In fact, you and I can visit the cockpit of a lot of them, they're HAPPY to show it to you. Someone was just posting he was on a 747, and they LET HIM SIT IN THE RIGHT SEAT AND MAKE A TURN. Yeah, I'd love to do that, too. And there are thousands of them in the skies over every day. I'm not submitting a fscking STC to the FAA, I'm just posting an idea. The idea, its fine. Its the attitude that "This is so simple, they could just DO it.". No, its not that simple, no, they can't just do it, and there are other problems - completely unaddressed that it would create. (imagine a loss of pressurization in the front cockpit (and much less time as a result to get masks on) and a plane going down. Or a lot of other things. The problem is you CANNOT remove ALL RISK. At some point, the safeguards and the checking of the checks of the checks becomes very bad. What happens if you put 100LL into a jet tank? One they won't use til they're airborne? Ok, so how are we going to prevent that? At some point you do have to accept a risk. And sometimes its easily pointed to and said "that was stupid". Usually by people who don't understand all of the balances that went into the decision. Addison
Post #8,687 by mmoffitt 9/12/01 4:50:45 PM Reply	Had to reread my posts. >>The idea, its fine. Its the attitude that "This is so simple, they could just DO it. I sure as hell didn't mean to imply it was easy. Hell, NOTHING is easy to change on ANY airplane. The Weight and Balance calculations alone confuse me :-) [not really, just kidding].
Post #8,695 by marlowe 9/12/01 5:10:29 PM Reply	Nobody's saying it's easy. Addison likes to put words in our mouths. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Post #8,698 by addison 9/12/01 5:20:41 PM Reply	You did. Words in your mouth? Hell, if I did that it would IMPROVE the intelligence of what you're saying. Of course, I suppose it easier to just insult me than admit that your "solutions" are exactly what I called them as - kneejerk reactions. (Something to think about: 747 has 3-4 flight crew. some flights have 2 of them. With 1 set of bunks so they can sleep. Now figure how to rejigger the plane to put that behind your armor. After all, its solutions you're offering, right?) Its far far far harder than you're saying. Because what you're saying is exactly "Don't have planes, then they can't crash". So are you driving a car? What kind, who made what tradeoffs with it? What did they tradeoff with your house? Your office? C'mon, you're in for a penny, in for a pound, lets hear your expertise on all these risks, and how to obliviate them.. (The WTC was designed to survive a 707 crash, in theory. Common sense would have said they should have scaled up to planes that didn't exist then) And while we're at it, let's sue the ass of whoever it was didn't start the ball rolling on this seven to ten years ago. Lots of solutions Give the cockpit crew their own john in there. Have the backup crew sit in that section too. Just enlarge it a bit. As for going back and checking on things, let's just do without. Or settle for closed-circuit cameras. It's a tradeoff, and our priorities need to be adjusted now. Weight considerations? Now there's a false economy. Sure sounds like you're calling them all idiots, and that its sure easy, to me. Addison
Post #8,700 by Another Scott 9/12/01 5:33:28 PM Reply	The WTC survived the crashes just fine. They didn't survive the fires. Nothing could. Listen to the [link\|http://www.pbs.org/newshour/newshour_index.html\|Real Audio] of the NewsHour segment last night entitled "Structural Questions". (I assume they'll have transcripts soon.) The building was very strong and survived the impact just fine. The problem was the jet fuel fire which couldn't be put out in time. The steel softened and the upper stories collapsed, ram-rodding the rest of the building into the ground. If the steel hadn't softened, it would still be standing. There are coatings they can put on steel to resist fires, and they're standard. But they're designed to resist a 3 hour office fire (paper, carpet, etc.), not a jet fuel fire. Nothing can stand up to that (at least nothing practical - you can't wrap every beam in 3 feet of asbestos or something...). It wasn't the impact which did in the towers, it was the fire. Cheers, Scott.
Post #8,717 by addison 9/12/01 6:31:20 PM Reply	Doesn't change my point.... That is, according to marlowe, you have to account for every possibility. Now that we know you can fly an airliner into a building, surely you're negligent if you don't armor it and prepare so that it won't collapse. Which is of course, absurd. Right now, they're talking about banning knifes - even in resturants - in the airport, and on the plane. (hope you like grilled cheese when you fly, and dont' insist on the crust being cut off). Which is starting to miss the forest for the trees, again. You're absolutely right, at least I don't know that you're wrong. The designers never really planned for THIS contingency - and at some point you do have to say "well, we can't cover that". Addison
Post #8,745 by wharris2 9/12/01 9:24:49 PM Reply	Re: The WTC survived the crashes just fine. If it collapsed, it didn't "survive the crashes just fine". The designers just didn't take into account thousands (tens or hundreds?) of gallons of jet fuel poured into the structure. Unexpected side effects. As a programmer, I know all about that. This is a majorly ouch unexpected side effect. That no man should scruple, or hesitate a moment to use arms in defense of so valuable a blessing [as freedom], on which all the good and evil of life depends, is clearly my opinion; yet arms ... should be the last resource. - George Washington
Post #8,727 by marlowe 9/12/01 6:56:12 PM Reply	All right. Maybe not so much words in my mouth as... appallingly bad reading comprehension on your part. [link\|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html\|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
Post #8,732 by addison 9/12/01 7:38:20 PM Reply	Not as bad as Your apalling condecention towards all those people you want to go sue. Now would you bother explaining about you car, and your house? Or if you're going to run, stop insulting me. Addison

Welcome to IWETHEY!