Sunday, September 10, 2006
Hollywood And Reality
I now believe that it's much harder to hijack an aircraft (in the air) than it used to be. Why? Because passengers, unlike before 9/11, are no longer willing to go like sheep to the slaughter. It's been proven several time since that they'll fight back. To the death if necessary. Passengers have come to realize that the hijackers are no longer releasing anyone unharmed, and will fight them with whatever means is at their disposal. That trend started with American flight 93. In one case recently, a misbehaving miscreant was killed by the people who subdued him. They didn't mean to, but they obviously erred on the side of caution. (Let god sort it out, as it were.) My point is that passengers have moved past the idea of cowering in their seats, hoping there's an air marshal aboard, and will take matters into their own hands. Potential hijackers know this. The hijackers now know they'll have a fight on their hands, a fight they'd rather not engage in, because they'll be outnumbered. That's why the recent attempt in England (Not a very good one, I might add.) involved blowing planes up in mid-air without any planned attempt to take physical control of the aircraft before hand. That's assuming of course, that it would have worked as we've been told it would.
On the subject of bringing down an aircraft down with a small amount of explosive, modern aircraft are MUCH stronger and robust than many people give them credit for. A couple of good examples. In 1988 Aloha Airline flight 243 lost an entire section of the roof that collapsed and came off at flight level 24 (That's 24 thousand feet.) yet only one flight attendant died. This aircraft survived an explosive decompression, losing HALF its upper cross section over the first class area, yet still survived an emergency descent and landed safely with all but one person still aboard. Another example is the United Air flight 811. On February 24, 1989 a Boeing 747-122 lost a cargo door at around 23,000 feet, and lost a major portion of the starboard side of the fuselage. Now of course, luck of the draw has a lot to do with some of this, but it's also true that aircraft can withstand a lot of damage and still stay airborne. If you watch a lot of Hollywood movies, you're probably convinced a simple bullet hole through a window is enough to suck a person through to his/her death. The famous Goldfinger scene is what a lot of people think about, but that's a product of the fevered imagination of Hollywood producers, eager to show off their special effects skills. The truth is, that while most certainly making passengers uncomfortable and probably rendering them unconscious if they can’t manage to get emergency air, you're not likely to get sucked out a window to a certain death. In terms of mechanical systems, the more recent generation of aircraft, such at the Boeing 767 and 777 family, and the more recent Airbus family of aircraft have benefitted from the hard lessons learned from crashes of jetliners in the seventies. Duplicate backup and redundant hydraulic and electrical systems are no longer all routed through the same area as they once were, providing a better chance that at least one system will survive a structural failure and continue to function.
One thing I AM certain of, and something any terrorism expert, if they're being honest, will agree with, is that airport and aircraft ground security in this country is a joke. Period. This is all under the purview of the administration, via the FAA and the TSA, both organizations controlled by said administration. (Via the cabinet.) Congress in NOT in the business of day-to-day oversight and management of either agency. This admin. IS.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny ..."
Isaac Asimov
On the subject of bringing down an aircraft down with a small amount of explosive, modern aircraft are MUCH stronger and robust than many people give them credit for. A couple of good examples. In 1988 Aloha Airline flight 243 lost an entire section of the roof that collapsed and came off at flight level 24 (That's 24 thousand feet.) yet only one flight attendant died. This aircraft survived an explosive decompression, losing HALF its upper cross section over the first class area, yet still survived an emergency descent and landed safely with all but one person still aboard. Another example is the United Air flight 811. On February 24, 1989 a Boeing 747-122 lost a cargo door at around 23,000 feet, and lost a major portion of the starboard side of the fuselage. Now of course, luck of the draw has a lot to do with some of this, but it's also true that aircraft can withstand a lot of damage and still stay airborne. If you watch a lot of Hollywood movies, you're probably convinced a simple bullet hole through a window is enough to suck a person through to his/her death. The famous Goldfinger scene is what a lot of people think about, but that's a product of the fevered imagination of Hollywood producers, eager to show off their special effects skills. The truth is, that while most certainly making passengers uncomfortable and probably rendering them unconscious if they can’t manage to get emergency air, you're not likely to get sucked out a window to a certain death. In terms of mechanical systems, the more recent generation of aircraft, such at the Boeing 767 and 777 family, and the more recent Airbus family of aircraft have benefitted from the hard lessons learned from crashes of jetliners in the seventies. Duplicate backup and redundant hydraulic and electrical systems are no longer all routed through the same area as they once were, providing a better chance that at least one system will survive a structural failure and continue to function.
One thing I AM certain of, and something any terrorism expert, if they're being honest, will agree with, is that airport and aircraft ground security in this country is a joke. Period. This is all under the purview of the administration, via the FAA and the TSA, both organizations controlled by said administration. (Via the cabinet.) Congress in NOT in the business of day-to-day oversight and management of either agency. This admin. IS.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny ..."
Isaac Asimov
