The answer is:

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!