Armed pilots

[TWINKLE_TOES]

CP1969,

<font color=blue>There's a sh-tpot full of wires, hydraulic and fuel lines, and control cables running through the aircraft,</font color=blue> Your right on here. Looking at a large commerecial jet in the factory before all that stuff is covered is mind bogling.<font color=blue> any one of which has the potential, if damaged, to down the aircraft</font color=blue> Not really. All large commercial aircraft primary flight systems are highly redundant. Single, double and in some instances triple failures of any of these systems do not endanger the continued safe flight and landing of the aircraft.
Al

 

[cp1969]

Not sure I agree. Remember Al Haynes? He might not agree with you, either. Nor would the pilots (if they were alive) of the AA DC10 at Chicago, Turkish Airlines DC10 near Paris, UAL 737 at Colorado Springs, USAir 737 at Pittsburgh, Alaska MD80 off California coast. All of these crashed without having holes shot in their doubly and triply redundant flight control systems.

 

[TWINKLE_TOES]

Randy,
<font color=blue>Not sure I agree. </font color=blue> Not sure you need to, at least you left room for discussion./w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif. I don't think I meant airplanes never crash as a result of single events. Pilot error, weather, improper maintence, failure of primary structure to name but a few, have brought airplanes down. The worst single event accident I can recall was the DC10 at Souix city. An uncontained engine failure severed all three hydraulic systems. Still, single event failures for primary flight contols are highly redundant and single failures recoverable.

The following information about some of the crashes you identified was extracted from this <A target="_blank" HREF=http://airsafe.com/events/models/rate_mod.htm>Link</A> The other accidents you mentioned are also reported, but I think I have strayed far enough from the subject of the thread with just these.

25 May 1979; American Airlines DC10-10; Chicago, USA: During the takeoff roll, the left engine and pylon separated from the wing. The crew continued the takeoff, but wing damage due to the engine separation also damaged the aircraft hydraulic system and caused retraction of some flight control surfaces. The aircraft rolled and crashed shortly after takeoff. All 258 passengers and 13 crew were killed.

3 March 1974; THY DC10-10; near Paris, France: During climb, a rear cargo door which was improperly closed blew out. The resulting cabin decompression caused damage to the main cabin floor and to some control cables in the area. The crew was unable to control the aircraft and the plane crashed. All 333 passengers and 12 crew were killed.

3 March 1991; United Airlines 737-200; near Colorado Springs, CO: The aircraft departed from controlled flight and crashed during its approach. The NTSB has not yet determined the cause of this accident. All five crew members and 20 passengers were killed. NTSB report link available.

Al

 

[Chuck52]

This discussion is wandering around, isn't it. Seems to me that if we assume the terrorists get aboard without firearms or explosives, only armed with "knives", the most important thing is to prevent them from gaining control of the pilots. Is this better done by arming the pilots or by denying access to the flight deck? I suppose one could imagine the flying slaughterhouse scenario, where the pilots are safe behind locked doors while the terrorists are slicing and dicing the passengers, but even old guys like me would resist getting that treatment. On the other hand, what happens if one of the knife-wielding terrorists takes a pilot or co-pilot by surprise and gets his gun? Or maybe he just gets into the cockpit and offs the whole flight crew with his knife before they can whip that six-gun out and pop him? It just seems to me that maintaining pilot safety is the issue. I'd rather they had better doors than guns. If they want guns too, that's fine with me, so long as they don't get complacent about the doors!

Chuck

 

[RoyJackson]

If they want guns too, that's fine with me, so long as they don't get complacent about the doors!

This is very true!! Being proactive (the doors) is much better then being reactive (gun or any other defensive weapon)

 

[Bob_Trevithick]

Hi Wingnut,

<font color=blue>...Bob ... the anti-American comment I made was in reference to the entire tone of the article.</font color=blue>

Okay, understood. But, that aside, did the actual arguments Mike presented in that article sound reasonable to you? I don't see how the situation could have happened as they claim it did.. it just seems like some "impossible" things happened on this flight. The data is very weird, to say the least.

Can you set aside your feelings about the author's tone and reply to the substance of the article, provided of course you have any interest in doing so? I just makes no sense at all to me that they could blame the co-pilot for murdering all these people, based on what is known about this flight. But then, I'm no aviation expert.. and maybe Mike's assertions are simply wrong. But since he spent 14 years working for Boeing, it's seems likely he has at least some idea of what he's talking about.

BTW, I'd love to hear comments from anyone else who is interested in such things....

Thanks,
Bob

 

[Charlie_Iliff]

Re: Egyptair

Bob:
By coincidence, I saw on TV news last night that the NTSB will be issuing its Egyptair report within the next few days, with the finding that the copilot caused the accident. Reportedly they will not say deliberately, although the inference will be inescapable.
I am an inactive private pilot, and lawyer with some aviation practice including defense of airline crash cases. Although I am skeptical of NTSB investigations, the factual packages usually have so much technical detail, by so many different people, that I have trouble visualizing an effective conspiracy to hide real information. I'd want to see the Egyptair package before agreeing or disagreeing with anything at all in the article speculating about an anti-gravity UFO. I have not seen the package, but articles I recall seeing did not report the 8000 ft climb. When the report is issued, I will be interested to see what it contains, particularly since my wife lost a cousin on that flight.
Although I think an NTSB/FBI/military coverup to be difficult to accomplish, I do not believe the fuel explosion theory on TWA 800. If that were true, 747 parts would be littering the landscape. Some convincing eyewitnesses said they saw a streak resembling a missile. "Investigators" explained to them how wrong they were. Litigators involved in that one are sure they will never get the whole story.
So back to arming the pilots: A friend of mine has said for years that each passenger should be issued a handgun at the boarding ramp. There would be no more attempted hijackings.

 

[Bob_Trevithick]

Re: Egyptair

<font color=blue>... I'd want to see the Egyptair package before agreeing or disagreeing with anything at all in the article speculating about an anti-gravity UFO. I have not seen the package, but articles I recall seeing did not report the 8000 ft climb. When the report is issued, I will be interested to see what it contains, particularly since my wife lost a cousin on that flight...</font color=blue>

I'd love to hear what you think once you do see the report. Sorry about your wife's cousin! I hope I didn't stir up some old pain. /w3tcompact/icons/sad.gif

Bob

 

[Bob_Trevithick]

<font color=red>If they want guns too, that's fine with me, so long as they don't get complacent about the doors!</font color=red>

<font color=blue>This is very true!! Being proactive (the doors) is much better then being reactive (gun or any other defensive weapon)</font color=blue>

The comment about being proactive reminds me of something a fellow programmer pointed out a while back.. he made a couple of interesting observations, I thought. I'm wondering what the people with flight experience would think of them...

1) Instead of just voice recorders and black boxes, why not install a $39 "cockpit cam"? Then we wouldn't have to guess what happened. It could recycle the tape so we'd always have say the last 20 or 30 minutes if we needed it later.

2) Why not have the airplane automatically, at the first hint of any problem, dial up the FAA and begin a V.90 data dump directly to them of all pertinent information? As the other guy said, then there wouldn't be these endless searches for the black box. Well, we would still want the black box if the FAA answered "Please wait for the next available attendant..."

Bob

 

[Wingnut]

... probably because doing anymore than the infamous Black Boxes would do 2 things:
1) give people "evidence" of how dangerous air travel is when the FAA's mandate is to do the opposite
2) force another cost (that stuff has to be bought and maintained) on the airlines, which they double and pass back to us.


By the way ... did you see the news report yesterday re the Egypt Air flight? They're releasing the official report and everything is laid on the co-pilot based on the black box data. He kicked off the a/p and dropped the nose.

Wing(and a prayer)nut
Heck ... we've got enough wasted costs right now ... what are we now paying .. an extra $4 per leg for "security" (excuse me while I barf) run by the government. The same government that currently has banks writing off $62 million in bad credit cards debts from cards they've issued in the Pentagon? Give me a break!

 

[RanchMan]

<font color=blue>1) Instead of just voice recorders and black boxes, why not install a $39 "cockpit cam"? </font color=blue>

I saw something on TV where some company is developing this currently. The other part of the news story was that the airline pilot's association was not real happy about "watching" the cockpit (fine with the cabin) due to liability issues.


<font color=blue>2) Why not have the airplane automatically, at the first hint of any problem, dial up the FAA and begin a V.90 data dump directly to them of all pertinent information? </font color=blue>

That same news story had talked about development of a "ground based pilot" system so they (whoever "they" is) could control of the plane in an event of an emergency (pilots had to have a code to override or something like that). Different than what you were talking about, but I bet someone is thinking about it if they are also considering the remote pilot thing.

 

[Bob_Trevithick]

<font color=blue>...By the way ... did you see the news report yesterday re the Egypt Air flight? They're releasing the official report and everything is laid on the co-pilot based on the black box data. He kicked off the a/p and dropped the nose. </font color=blue>

Yeah. I feel so bad for his family. :-( The guy apparently did turn off the A/P and drop the nose, but he then throttled back the engines to keep the plane within it's rated .86G rating, and pulled out of the dive somehow. Doesn't sound lto me ike a guy who wanted to crash. But Mike Bara said it much better than I possibly can in his article. I consider Mike's integrity and intelligence beyond question, as he is Richard Hoagland's right hand man. I just wonder.. is the radar data from six independent Air Force radar stations going to magically disappear from the final report? It wouldn't surprise me in the least, I'm sad to say.

Yeah, I bet pilots wouldn't be crazy about having everything they do recorded by a camera. My feeling.. that's tough.. do it anyway. I agree about the FAA probably not wanting it either. A sad state of affairs we've come to, if you ask me.

 

[Wingnut]

I'll have to read the report when it comes out ... it had been my impression that the pull-out had been the pilot trying to regain control or wrest control away ...
I don't imagine that the information is going to disappear ... since it was already announced almost immediately.
I very much doubt that these guys WANT the co-pilot to be responsible ... it goes against their aim of always making air travel appear safer than sleeping in your own bed.

 

[Egon]

Bob:

That independant radar data is extremely interesting!

Egon

 

[Charlie_Iliff]

Bob:
If you search the net on Egyptair, there is a lot of discussion, speculation and argument. There is also the public release factual NTSB data, with both analysis by the Air Force of its data, and some discussion. Of primary importance, I think is that the "climb" from 16000 to 24000 is just after the mode C transponder shuts off, so it is quite different from that showing the dive. I can see why it hasn't been given much weight. Of more significance to me is the cockpit voice recorder translation. Although there are a lot of references to Allah, they read a lot like "Oh My God."
Since soon after the crash, the Egyptians have been saying a missile or bomb took off the tail. Some stories lay the whole thing at ol' *****'s feet. The most consistent theme of the government, however, seems denial that any missile ever could have been in the area of three unexplained crashes and a lot of pilot reports of having seen things.
I don't think the radar really shows much, but the suicide doesn't make sense either.
I had been buying the suicide theory until now. Having read a bit more, I now doubt it, and am more stricken by the similarity to TWA 800.

 

[Old_Wanker]

I'm all for pilots having arms. What they going to fly the plane with otherwise - their teeth?

Just a little light relief.

 

[billboe]

I agree... The most important part is to keep them out of the cockpit! Unless these guys can smuggle some kind of automatic weapon on board I don't believe the passengers will stand (or sit) for them killing other passengers or crewmembers. I'd say this type of hijacking is finished (especially if they can keep them out of the cockpit). Passengers just won't take it!

Now, we just need to anticipate what the terrorists will do next (not easy I'm sure!)... The thing about 9-11 was that the idea was soooooooooo simple! That is why it was soooooooooo "successful"...

 

[Kelvin]

I won't bother to express an opinion as to the cause of the accident. I don't KNOW and facts and speculation would be useless. Here is some general information about the aircraft pitch axis:

<font color=blue>but he then throttled back the engines to keep the plane within it's rated .86G rating, and pulled out of the dive somehow. </font color=blue>

Retarding the engines to idle will cause the nose to lower thus aiding in a rapid descent while applying engine power will cause the aircraft nose to raise. Retarding engine power to idle is one of the first steps in an emergency descent.

The aircraft could have pulled out of a dive without the pilot's or copilot's inputs. This is how: If the aircraft's elevator axis was trimmed to fly at 0.74 mach (a reasonable "cruise mach" number that I made up), and the control column was held forward while the aircraft was descending and accelerating to 0.86 mach, then if control column were to be released the aircraft would attempt to return to the 0.74 mach that it was trimmed for (in this case a climb would be required to lose airspeed). I realize that the copilot could have changed the trim setting, but if so, may not have trimmed it for 0.86 mach.

Kelvin

 

[3rdbase]

Wow. So many thoughts. I have an interest in this because it's what I do for a living In fact I had just taken off from San Francisco in a 767 when the first aircraft hit the WTC. So many points brought up. Here's a few of my own. If pilots were armed, 9-11 would be a lawsuit, not a national tragedy. Rapid decompression as the result of a bullet hole is way overrated-the stuff of movies. Frangible bullets solve the problem,(though it really doesn't exist anyway). The point made about about crippling the aircraft by hitting a component necessary for flight is a non sequitor-wouldn't happen. We're not talking about an old west gunfight here, just defending the flight controls. All those accidents mentioned have little to do with the issue, and would take too much bandwidth to discuss.
Here's my take. Is it reasonable to arm someone who is in control of a potential weapon of mass destruction in order to prevent this potential weapon from killing thousands of citizens? I say, without a doubt. Next time you're in a shopping mall take a look at the extremely overweight ARMED security guard whose task is to do do what? Protect the masses from shoplifters? The debate is ongoing in my industry and boils down to this: Are company attourneys advising the board of directors to be willing to defend a worngful death lawsuit in order to save an airplane?
Someone suggested the horse is out of the barn on this issue. I think not. Islamic terrorists may not try to use the same tactics, but with 50-250 people on airliners, it doesn't take bizarre ideolgy to come up with one wacko. It was also suggested that our lawmakers do not fly commecial. Wrong. They do. I see them all the time.

 

[3rdbase]

Other stuff

Guys, I really don't want to get off the subject, but do feel the need to comment on other posts in this thread.
Kelvin. Excellent point re an aircraft seeking it's "trimmed" airspeed. Fully explains the pull up of EgyptAir.
CP in a previous post stated: "Had the pilots of the 9/11 airplanes been armed, all one could say is that maybe those disasters could have been averted".
Wrong cp. Those disasters would have been averted.
I do believe the fuel tank explosion theory of TWA 800. The errant missile theorists have never fired a missile or gone through the prelimnary work necessary to do a live missile exercise. Preposterous to think that a US Navy ship could have fired a live missile under a know departure corridor. If the theorists believe it came from an airplane they need to explain the paucity of radar evidence. An event of this magnitude would leave behind a hugh trail.