What is Digg?152 Comments
- icetigaurus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+52I think the real question here is:
Why aren't they taking measures to make planes snake proof? - Erinyes75, on 10/12/2007, -0/+40I've just gotta say something here. Every time I hear about fixing hijacking, one thing stands out to me like a gigantic zit on a drill sergeants nose. Why the heck hasn't anyone anywhere said "Hey, why don't we just separate the cockpit from the cabin by a solid steel bulkhead with no door at all"???
Oh no! We might have to give them their own bathroom and perhaps crew it a little differently.
Hijacker speaking into camera: "Fly the plane into the building or this kid gets it!"
Pilot: ...
Hijacker: "Let me in right now!"
Pilot: "Certainly! Simply open the door to the outside of the plane and come right in the cockpit door, but I hope you are wearing an excellent wind-breaker." - CovardeAnonimo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+26not a bad idea. i'll go a little further.
make the life support system for the cockpit independent of the passanger cabin, in this case if someone tries to hijack the plane, the pilots can slowly reduce the cabin's pressure to knock down the hijackers, or release some kind of sleeping gas or something like that. - johlin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20Good idea. It doesn't stop terrorists from blowing up the planes though.
- Stompp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18Easy: mini fridge. done.
- apocalizer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16mini fridge, george foreman grill, microwave, cupholders.
- socoolisme, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16We already have nonhijackable planes. If you try to hijack a plane the other passengers will kick your ass.
- h0kiez, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16@Chordonblue
I love how at some point, somebody decided to rename "common sense" and call it "profiling".
Not profiling based on race/age/gender/whatever is just plain stupid, and I wish more people weren't so afraid to say it. - Lord_oftheTrons, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15This quote from the end of the article is a little bothersome:
"We have to show it's not Big Brother watching you, it's Big Brother looking after you," Ferryman said.
That is a very thin line that takes us down a slippery slope. - 955701, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11anesthetizing people is an art - it's a fallacy to think that you can knock out an entire room of peope and not kill at least one of them, while making sure they are all unconcious. Reference - the theatre incident in Russia.
- skotski, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Solution to terrorist on planes:
All pork meals
Naked stuardesses
Swine leather apholstery
And in case of emergency exploding bags of pig blood
...hey if they can play on our fears... - crashflow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10@stompp
Captian: (Pfffttt!!!) Ahh....cold beer. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12The mentality of people is just disgustingly stupid. Why are we still focused on planes?
1. I'm not even sure terrorists really actively try to attack us. There are a million things they could hit this very second if they wanted to. Don't let the illusion that we have some almighty security in place when in actuality we're just as exposed as we were 5 years ago fool you.
2. Everyone's attention is focused on airports and planes that attention is diverted away from other, more important things. So while everyone's backs are turned, IF someone wanted to attack us in some other aspect, they could easily get away with it moreso than they could before.
...or are you people buying into this whole "plot foiled" business? If that's the case then I don't even know what to say anymore. I think people have just ultimately gone ***** retarded. - knightblade2oo4, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Holy *****... how stressful would that be?
Sitting in a room playing a 'video game' with 300 people's lives in your hands. Not sure I'd be comfortable flying any more. - Chordonblue, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10The truth is, EVERYONE is profiled by some agency somewhere. Remember when you had to fill out that government form (take your pick). Yeah? Well, you're in a computer somewhere along with the rest of your personal attributes. Police do this all the time because it makes sense to do so. You know a bank robber isn't going to be described as a 'non-descript individual wearing dark clothes and a ski mask'.
And if you're white, don't worry, you're already discriminated against. Try and get a promotion in an urban police force or join a prestigious college or get a government job. The argument about racial profiling or ANY sort of profiling is bogus - it's done all the time - the rule should be one of common sense. Little old ladies are probably not our biggest threat. - merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Am I the only one who thinks the idea of an unhijackable plane is laughable? There is no perfect security. Ever. If there's a path for authorized people to get in to a secured object, then there's a path for unathorized people as well.
The only perfect security would be security that doesn't even let authorized people in. That, of course, would be completely self defeating. - 955701, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Jam the tower, kill thousands at once. Not cool.
- Zander, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I wonder if one could start a travel service where this non-hijackable plane could be used in concert with the non-sinkable ship of yesteryear?
- merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9"'Not all Arabs are terrorists, but almost all terrorists are Arabs.' No kidding."
That "Almost all" is a big problem. It only takes a couple of non-arab terrorists to take down a plane.
"What SHOULD be done is to ensure they are here legally - no funny business."
At least some of the 9/11 hijackers came into the US legally.
I agree that totally random searches are moronic, though. I'm sure they didn't catch the most recent batch in the UK via random search. More likely, it was long-term survailance, and/or in response to suspicious activity. - LuxFX, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Posit: A wireless, virtual-reality driven plane with the plane controls completely inaccessible from the interior of the aircraft. Piloting is done from the ground through an encrypted satellite communication from a secure location.
Real-world result: The communications software development would either go to the lowest bid, or without a bid at all to a government stooge. Probably, Diebold. - josegutz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Trap doors and spring loaded ejection panels!!!!
It's about time... - Chordonblue, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"Here's the problem: not _all_ terrorists are turban-wearing arab men with bad accents."
I'll quote an Arab commentator in brief, he said, 'Not all Arabs are terrorists, but almost all terrorists are Arabs.' No kidding.
You are going to extremes when you suggest 'strip searching every Arab'. That's not necessary either. What SHOULD be done is to ensure they are here legally - no funny business. They could at least START with that. Had that very simple step been taken on 9/11 things may have turned out very differently.
We're probably not as concerned about a 55 year old Mexican man without proper documentation, but I'd be VERY concerned about a 19 year old Pakistani or Egyptian travelling with no immediate family and faulty documentation (or overstayed visa). Flags should be raised when it's reasonable to do so. - bollingj, on 10/12/2007, -8/+15How about this, during pre-boarding everyone has to eat a piece of ham!
- halavais, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7How about we all just chill and see if what we are doing is already enough. Sorry, but if I die in the next year, despite a lot of time in airplanes, it's most likely going to be because of a drunk/tired/stupid driver plowing into my car.
- Chordonblue, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10As to the 'blow up the plane problem' - this too is simple:
You get on the plane NAKED! Well, ok, they give you a paper gown thingy. That's about the only way anyone will ever be sure that some terrorist idiot doesn't take out a plane.
I guess you have to look at reasonable risks. You know, like... Racially profiling passengers so 80 year old Chinese women aren't strip searched and the rest of us aren't waiting in line. Can we at least be honest about whose behind these attempts and start there? - NSMike, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Airbus is a natural candidate for this kind of system. They already implement Fly-by-wire technology which controls what pilots can do. It wouldn't take much more to implement other features like the collision avoidance, and so forth.
However, despite the risks associated with it and hijackers being in control, I'm much more in favor of Boeing's philosophy - Let the pilot control the plane and make the decisions. I work for a software developer, and if there's one thing I see a lot of, it's bugs. I'm afraid that if they do the collision avoidance, and allow the computer to control the jet, what happens on landing, say, in San Diego, where you're landing practically in the city? Collision avoidance would have to be pretty preemptive, due to the fact that you're approaching a static object at high speeds. Accidentally get one of those buildings in the collision avoidance detection grid, and the jet could steer you away from one building and into another. These are not easy things to implement. - headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Why not just give the pilots a button to push that releases gas into the cabin, knocking everyone out instantly. Hijackers, passengers, crew.. everyone. Except the pilots of course.
Then again, that just might kill a few people who might be allergic to whatever gas, but it's better than having the plane fly into a building, which would kill thousands of people. - Chordonblue, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"That simply is not true in the United States. Most of the "terrorists" acts in the US have been done by non-Arabs."
Well, I was talking about a specific threat, in this case, airline terrorism. Sorry, but Arabs with an Islamo-fascist leaning seem to have this market cornered... - ShakeWell, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7i can see it now:
"crash this plane!"
"sure thing boss, we'll willingly comply, we just need you to take 2 steps back and 1 step left..." - NSMike, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5It would either have to be very inconspicuous gas, or very fast-acting. The ideal combo would be both. Combine that with a seperated cockpit, and you've got a relatively safe plane.
- astatine, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6...and this is the clever part - without a 'plane!
- Chordonblue, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Sleeping gas works in movies where everyone just 'wakes up' when it's all over, but not in real life. The Russians tried it in a terrorist takeover of a theater and it killed more than survived the gas.
Different people have different tolerances. That cyclist on row 45 might be able to take a couple lungfuls but I'll bet the toddlers on row 8 couldn't handle much more than one. - UncommonSense, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Um, I already fly like that thank you very much.
- ElectricKetchup, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6That's great, but what if the pilot is the terrorist? Seriously guys. Give up! There's no way to prevent every possible way if causing something bad to happen. Control the plane remotly? What if the air traffic control is the terrorist?
Terrorists want you to live in fear. I will never. If people really wanted to fight terrorism, they would keep the freedoms that we have and living life happily. - scottykempf, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I second the idea of NOT actually having a door into the cockpit from the passenger compartment of the plane. The flight crew can enter the cockpit from outside the plane. You could even still have a door that looks like it goes to the cockpit, but when the hijackers go through it the pilots open a trap door and whhoooooosshhhhhhh ....BYE BYE HIJACKERS!!!!
- m0j0man, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Does nobody remember "The Fifth Element"? Just place everyone in a little cabin and induce sleep during the flight. That way we all get there safe, everyone is well rested when they get off the plane, and who knows, we might even eradicate jet-lag!! No drunk businessmen, no crying babies, no smelly, sleeping pill taking slob dribbling drool on my shoulder.....
well, I replyed to the wrong comment, but you get the idea - EBFoxbat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Problem: Hijacking the plane.
Solution: No access to cockpit from cabin
Problem: Bomb detonation from within cabin.
Solution: Don't let explosives on the plane.
Problem: Explosives get on the plane anyway.
Solution: Heavily armored cabin is isolated from the rest of the plane. Add blast doors from explosive pressure to excape. Many will die, many will not. Whereas if the plane is ripped apart, all die.
Problem: If people want to blow up a plane, they will (assuming they are smart enough not to make the plans too complex- like blowing up 10 at the same time- or talk about it at all).
Solution: Let's work on making people not hate us and trying to blow us up. - delvach, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Problem here is escalation:
1. Snakes > Terrorists
2. Samuel L. Jackson > Snakes
3. Sharks > Samuel J. Jackson
4. Roy Scheider > Sharks
Of course, you could always just use Chinese Needle Snakes, followed by a special breed of gorilla that thrives on snakemeat. Let them go to sleep in the carbo bay when they're full, and come 30,000 feet, the gorillas simply freeze to death! - h0kiez, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Couldn't have said it better. As evidenced by the plane that went down in PA, no more planes are going to be flying into buildings. As soon as the passengers find out the plane is being hijacked, they're all going down swinging...at least I know I am. As for keeping people from blowing up planes, we just need better tech to detect these explosives. Nonetheless, blowing up some planes doesn't quite have the same "wow factor" as flying a plane into a massive building, hence why they felt they needed to blow up a ton of them in a couple of hours to have the desired impact.
- DCMacHead, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@ merreborn
you don't seem to be very good at identifying patterns. here's a list of terrorist incidents taken from wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents#2000s
in nearly every incident, it was a muslim responsible. i think it's about time we hold the group collectively responsible. because of politically correct jackasses like you, it will take another incident on the scale of 9/11 for a) people like you to get it or b) for the world to say "***** islam, it's not a religion of peace." - HoboMaster, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6We could just go with the Texan theft-deterrent method... Give everyone on the plane a gun.
- edmicman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5What, so they're not going to allow passenger on planes anymore?
- Langford, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5In the future, everyone will fly heavily sedated, stark naked, and with no luggage.
- GeneralFault, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Using sleeping gas or decompression as a terrorist deterrent is an interesting idea that I had been throwing around since 9/11. The trouble is, many people may react badly to the gas or decompression. Imagine, a pilot gets spooked by a loud noise in the back and hits the "Anti-terror" button. A sleeping gas is released in the back knocking everyone out. Unfortunately, an old lady and 2 babies are killed by the gas and the entire airline is sued into non-existence. Capitalism seems to dictate that if somebody is going to get hurt in your enterprise, it better not be you that hurt them even if you may have saved others in the process. Just the way it is.
Many suggest that we need to "change the way we travel". Some suggest wearing paper garments, or getting used to the strip searches, etc. I think that this is not only irritating but entirely ineffective. There is no possible way that you are going to change the behavior of every traveling person on the planet without some major backlash. Additionally, as Benjamin Franklin noted, the security would be temporary and the loss of freedom would be permanent. The criminals or terrorists would find a way around your measures, but the average person would still be subject to the humiliation or hassle.
To solve this problem, we must first understand why airplanes are such a target. I believe that they are a target for both hijacking and for blowing up simply because you have up to 300 people contained in a small space in a volatile situation flying in an object with HUGE kinetic energy. The solution, smaller planes. If we reduce the number of people on an airplane to the same number of people in say a bus, then terrorists would realize that they get very little "bang" for their traveling dollar.
I know that many small planes are more expensive than fewer big planes. Perhaps we could fly in a different type of vehicle. I envision something like Planes in a Snake. Or to be more accurate, a series of dirigibles stringed together. They could use the properties of lift to fly in a wave like pattern to propel themselves up to near 747 speeds, and appear to be like a huge snake in the sky. the advantage is that there is much more space for the passengers, and if any one part of the aircraft is damaged or blown up, it does not take the whole thing down. With some clever engineering, you may even be able to get the vehicle to split/merge mid flight like a huge tango line. That would allow individual "cars" to use small runways. - techisFun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Dugg for including "unhijackable" in the title...
- HeroicLife, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Here's an idea for eliminating plane hijackings:
Destroy the regimes that sponsor terrorism.
Either than, or we'll all be getting cavity searches before long. - SteelChicken, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4im with the sealed door option. easy, effective, cheap.
- AugustZephyr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Why don't we just fly the planes from a control tower in a bunker somewhere. No pilot on board = no hijack. The problem is if the plane gets out of range or something.
Something to work on. - sparagi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This is actually a very good idea. On the lighter side, they can pee in a empty milk jug carton.
- elsimer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3a good idea, but it doesn't address the issue of terrorists who don't want control of the plane - they just want to blow it up.
IMHO, we're never going to find a way to make a plane terror-proof. Hopefully we stop ourselves from getting into a situation where all passengers are required to check all luggage, then disrobe and dress in FCC-issued clothing for the duration of the flight -
Show 51 - 100 of 152 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is