WaIIy wrote:
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 18:44:45 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Paul Schilter wrote:
dixon,
Well true enough, before 9/11 a highjacking meant you had to detour to
Cuba, nothing to get too excited about.
Paul

In the early 1970's, some fool hijacked a Fairchild-Hiller prop jet from
White Plains, NY, and demanded to be flown to somewhere out on Long Island.

At least one aspect of the ease of airliner hijackings should have been
resolved years ago...the cockpit door and the bulkhead between the
cockpit and cabins should have been burst-proof and bullet-proof long
before 9-11, and the door should remain closed during the flight.

I agree with you on this one. It's shame on all administrations for not
getting this done.

It's more than just a political problem that our Executive or
legislative branches should have addressed. After the first few
hijackings decades ago, it should have occurred to the airlines and
their suppliers that serious security reinforcement was needed between
the cockpit and the cabin. Building in such security during the design
phase is simple and cheap; retrofitting is expensive.


--
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
And don't forget to pay your taxes so the rich don't have to!

I don't think that was, or is, the problem Harry. There was simply a policy
position that the crew cooperated. The security of the door was immaterial.
Simply stick a knife at the throat of a flight attendant and they would open
up.

If militants with real arms can penetrate an airplane the bullet proof
doors are not a significant factor. Opening locked doors is known art.

Simply changing to a policy of resisting at all cost combined with a little
bit of entry security really stops hi-jacking. There is no way that
passengers will cooperate with hijackers at this point.

The airport security stuff is all window dressing so the gov. can claim they
are doing something. What they are doing is screwing up a reasonably good
system to pander to the publics fear.

Check the Russian problems. We going to put armed marshalls in all the
schools and entertainment halls? The Chechen have perfectly well
demonstrated how to turn the most simple institutions of our society into
terror objects.

Nahh the whole thing is silly. You kill them were they live. You
infiltrate and counter. All the other stuff suppresses freedom not terror.

Jim

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
WaIIy wrote:
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 18:44:45 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Paul Schilter wrote:
dixon,
Well true enough, before 9/11 a highjacking meant you had to
detour to
Cuba, nothing to get too excited about.
Paul

In the early 1970's, some fool hijacked a Fairchild-Hiller prop jet from
White Plains, NY, and demanded to be flown to somewhere out on Long
Island.

At least one aspect of the ease of airliner hijackings should have been
resolved years ago...the cockpit door and the bulkhead between the
cockpit and cabins should have been burst-proof and bullet-proof long
before 9-11, and the door should remain closed during the flight.

I agree with you on this one. It's shame on all administrations for not
getting this done.

It's more than just a political problem that our Executive or
legislative branches should have addressed. After the first few
hijackings decades ago, it should have occurred to the airlines and
their suppliers that serious security reinforcement was needed between
the cockpit and the cabin. Building in such security during the design
phase is simple and cheap; retrofitting is expensive.


--
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
And don't forget to pay your taxes so the rich don't have to!