MAX extension not in current defense bill
10-12-2022 | 12:45 PM
#21
Line Holder
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 636
Likes: 13
From: Stretch DC-9 Gear Slinger
Look at literally every attempt at breaching the cockpit since then.
It always ends in some idiot getting duct taped to their seat at best and beaten to death (SWA) at worst. It’s a different environment. Pax will not sit there.
I won’t go as far as to say the threat is non-existent but I would say current safety measures do a great job with mitigation. I wouldn’t mind seeing it tacked on to new design aircraft but I don’t see a need to have it retrofitted.
It always ends in some idiot getting duct taped to their seat at best and beaten to death (SWA) at worst. It’s a different environment. Pax will not sit there.
I won’t go as far as to say the threat is non-existent but I would say current safety measures do a great job with mitigation. I wouldn’t mind seeing it tacked on to new design aircraft but I don’t see a need to have it retrofitted.
10-12-2022 | 01:28 PM
#22
Banned
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 8,831
Likes: 499
10-12-2022 | 01:31 PM
#23
Banned
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 8,831
Likes: 499
Common gross conceptual error for non-military folks is the thinking that any defense with less than 100% efficacy is a waste of money.
It's not. The opposition (including terrorist groups with the means to attempt a 9/11 style hijacking) always considers risks and obstacles... they do not like to throw hail mary's because failure is bad press, and tends to de-motivate their funding sources. So throw enough partially effective obstacles in their way and sum total of that is enough to severely discourage them. No fly lists, agressive counter-terror on the part of intel/law enforcement, TSA, improved procedures, FFDO, barriers... it all adds up to a lot of swiss cheese with few holes. Barriers are VERY high efficacy for actually very low cost... compared to all of the other mitigations I mentioned 
10-12-2022 | 02:22 PM
#24
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 44,888
Likes: 684
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
We're not going to be able to discuss that in great detail for SSI reasons, but personally I think it does address a weakness. And at a reasonable cost too. Who knows maybe they can save some money on some other part of the system once you have near-100% assurance that people in the cabin can't access the cockpit. Although I admit that's not how big government usually rolls.
10-12-2022 | 03:26 PM
#26
Banned
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,625
Likes: 0
From: Pilot
Swing and a miss yet again.
10-12-2022 | 03:56 PM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,215
Likes: 51
From: B-737NG preferably in first class with a glass of champagne and caviar
10-12-2022 | 04:04 PM
#28
Line Holder
Joined: Aug 2019
Posts: 481
Likes: 3
I've freaken had enough of SWA and their years of hindering and holding back innovation in the airline industry all because they don't want to spend money on simulators or they think their pilots couldn't handle it. The 737 is the turd it is today all thanks to these clowns. Bravo for congress to start holding Boeing accountable and if they had any balls they would make SWA pay Boeing for the bind they put them in.
10-12-2022 | 06:52 PM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,657
Likes: 302
I've freaken had enough of SWA and their years of hindering and holding back innovation in the airline industry all because they don't want to spend money on simulators or they think their pilots couldn't handle it. The 737 is the turd it is today all thanks to these clowns. Bravo for congress to start holding Boeing accountable and if they had any balls they would make SWA pay Boeing for the bind they put them in.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
