How does the pilot go to the bathroom? How does the pilot change positions with a relief pilot on flights over 12 hours? How does the pilot/co-pilot perform emergency maintance in the lower avionics compartments if their is some type of failure? How can the pilot visually inspect any type wing damage/other damage that may/may not have an effect on how the plane flies? If both pilots are killed/overcome/pass out, how would a passenger/flight attendant get to the controls to bring the plane down with direction from ATC? The current model needs trust as it allows for a greater number of survival possibilities for the aircraft. Don't band-aid the problem. Eliminate the problem. I have a friend that used to work in security for a large major airline. The Air Marshalls have never disappeared. You just don't know they are there. The only people that know they are there is the flight crew. They dress like you and me and act like you and me. An Air Marshall on any one of those 4 flights could have easily eliminated the situation unless the pilot was an imposter from takeoff. --- Geoff Zinderdine <geoffz@mts.net> wrote:
Terribly sorry to stray so much from on topic, but I have a question I can't satisfactorily answer my self. First I wish to convey my deep sorrow and sympathy to all listmembers directly or indirectly affected by this attack. Our thoughts and prayers are with you here in Canada, and we shall strike with one heart and mind at those that perpetrated this act. My question follows:
You can't get into a cab in NYC that doesn't have a shield that protects the cabbie from the passengers. Why on earth is the cabin even accessible from the passenger compartment? Could planes not be constructed to isolate the cabin entirely from the passengers? You could certainly provide limited seating for pilots that were flying along forward of this partition.
Is there any good reason for the amount of trust which is required in the present model?
Regards,
Geoff Zinderdine DSL Support Technician MTS Communications
----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Stewart" <dbs@ntrnet.net> To: <nanog@merit.org> Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 9:07 PM Subject: Re: Lack of Security
At 09:42 PM 9/12/2001, Robert Hough wrote:
The security we display in most aspects of our society echo the
security we display in most of our networks as well.
Now ask yourself, why was it so easy to hijack these planes? Because we have sacrificed security for convenience - and our enemy used that against us. Well, something to chew on. G'Night.
Can someone explain to me how only allowing ticketed passengers
security checkpoints is going to accomplish anything toward increased security? The only thing I can even dream of is that it will reduce the number of people passing the checkpoints.
These hijackers were ticketed passengers.
No carry-on? OK, so it will reduce hiding places for non-metallic weapons. On the other hand, so much for taking your laptop with you - are you willing to entrust your laptop to baggage handlers? Willing to
your Palm in your checked luggage?
This is just my feeling, but I honestly believe these measures are only giving the *appearance* of security, apparently to make the general
same past put public
feel better.
I do agree, though, with the comments on network security - so many, many are much more lax about the security of their networks than airports have been. As an anecdote, when I came to my current job last year, the network was wide open. Since, I've placed servers behind firewalls, and blocked things like NetBIOS (you wouldn't believe the cry that went up from customers when I did that - they *want* to use NetBIOS shares between business offices in various cities)
===== - -Andy Ellifson - __________________________________________________ Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help? Donate cash, emergency relief information http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Emergency_Information/