United adds another layer to cockpit security

[ QUOTE ]
And, by the way, Islamic fundamentalists in Russia just simultaneously took two airliners down in a coordinated attack. Seems like aviation is still in their playbook.

[/ QUOTE ]

But they didn't do it from the cockpit ...

[ QUOTE ]
Remember the hysteria on this forum when the history channel revealed that airlines develop their own mainteance methods to (oh my god) save money?

[/ QUOTE ]

Been here three years and this doesn't ring a bell (which doesn't mean a lot as I have a hard time remembering what I did yesterday /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif) ... could you post a link to the thread?


[ QUOTE ]
They are dead, along with thousands of their compatriots.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh yeah? Where's Osama?
 
[ QUOTE ]
I don't ascribe nearly the level of "logical thought process" to these fanatical murderers as you do.

[/ QUOTE ]


Haven't been reading your SunTzu, have you? Never, never, never, never, never, never, never, NEVER underestimate your enemy. They may be fanatical, but they aren't stupid. They are clever and resourceful, more so then we seem to be. And they don't have a history of making the same attack twice.

I don't have any problem with taking reasonable steps to ensure that 9/11 doesn't happen again, but gov't and industry seem to be putting way too much emphasis on preventing another 9/11 (and giving the people a false sense of security) and too little emphasis on stopping whatever the terrorists are going to do next. Are we even remotely prepared for what just happened in Russia? How about a wave of individual suicide bombers a la Israel? I don't think so.

My $0.02.

MF
 
[ QUOTE ]
but gov't and industry seem to be putting way too much emphasis on preventing another 9/11 (and giving the people a false sense of security) and too little emphasis on stopping whatever the terrorists are going to do next.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactyle ... and window dressing. case in point ... one of the local airports here in town has just finished putting up a chain link fence with barbed wire on the top aroundthe base of the tower and small parking lot. What in the hell is that going to stop? A motorcycly going fast enough would get through that like a knife through butter and imagine if they happened to use something larger like a, maybe, a car? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

I'm not slamming UAL for beefing up cockpit security, in fact I think it's great and am far more in favor of this than guns in the cockpit, but in terms of overall security we've done squat. Trains still oeprate with very little oversight, the highway system is completely unsecure, shipping containers enter and exit the country almost completely unmolested and there's more security at the local movie theater than there is along our southern (or northern, for that matter) border.

Instead of talking about how we kicked the $h*t out of Iraq and Saddam maybe we should be pooring our money into real security ...
 
[ QUOTE ]
Remember the hysteria on this forum when the history channel revealed that airlines develop their own mainteance methods to (oh my god) save money?

[/ QUOTE ]

Heck, I'll see Pilot602's three years and raise it to eight.

???? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif ????

I think the only mention of saving money in the context of airline maintenance was made in this post: American Airlines Flight 191 and I think MikeD did a really good job of explaining the surrounding context. I certainly wouldn't call that thread a melee.

He's a disciple at the shrine of Bill Waldock, after all! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
Haven't been reading your SunTzu, have you? Never, never, never, never, never, never, never, NEVER underestimate your enemy. They may be fanatical, but they aren't stupid. They are clever and resourceful, more so then we seem to be. And they don't have a history of making the same attack twice.

IMy $0.02.

MF

[/ QUOTE ]

All good points.

Clever is the better word for them. I am encouraged by the fact that historically movements like this have always been at least as self-destructive as other-destructive. This group seems to be that in spades. The key is being clever enough to help them self-destruct while avoiding as much other-destruction as possible.

As to whether they will use the same methods again. I tend to doubt it. That's one of the reasons I have been against the FAM program as too little bang for the buck. My thought was to invest in making the cockpit secure and move on. The mod that UAL is making completes securing the cockpit. Makes sense to me.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I think the only mention of saving money in the context of airline maintenance was made in this post: American Airlines Flight 191 and I think MikeD did a really good job of explaining the surrounding context. I certainly wouldn't call that thread a melee.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's exactly the one I was talking about. There was a lot of angst over the fact that American (and most DC-10 operators) used a procedure "not approved" by Douglas. Some called it criminal.

I just spent about an hour talking to the guy who ran D's engine shop for decades. He was telling me all the ways they found to extend engine life and reduce fuel burn, all "not approved" by P&W, Rolls Royce or GE. Of course they, in most cases, more than doubled the engine lives over what the manufactureres methods were. Sometimes they would take a coating or material that Rolls Royce used, as an example, and start using it in the P&Ws. The FAA would tell them to run it in the stand for awhile and if it checked out, do it.
 
I think the point that MikeD was getting across that AA's non-approved method of remounting the engines, which was shown to be a causal factor of the engine mount failing, killed a couple hundred people.

It's kind of hard to read, but the NTSB report says it right here.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I think the point that MikeD was getting across that AA's non-approved method of remounting the engines, which was shown to be a causal factor of the engine mount failing, killed a couple hundred people.

It's kind of hard to read, but the NTSB report says it right here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. The point I was trying to make was that "not approved by the manufacturer" was a sensational headline for the media and fodder for the lawyers, but absolutely meaningless in the world of commercial aviation. Day in and day out, the airlines tend to do it better and cheaper than the manufacturer methodology.
 
But amazingly meaningful to about 271 people that afternoon! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
But amazingly meaningful to about 271 people that afternoon! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I still contend that it took the original hydraulic/flight control design flaw plus the maintenance error to cause this crash. Remove the maintenace error and THAT crash doesn't happen, but with the design flaw eventually one of these airplanes was coming down. So I'd put more weight on that.

But the way the history channel made it sound, using maintenance procedures "not approved" by the manufacturer was in itself negligent, when in fact it is an industry standard.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I guess if the point is that UAL should put this money to "saving jobs" then I have to ask, is it OK if they cut corners in other safety areas? After all there are many areas of safety where there is probably enough redundancy to cut back.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm, when I included the sentence "not a emergency or mandated repair" I was referring to maintenance. Guess I should have made that a little more clear, sorry.

[ QUOTE ]
And, by the way, Islamic fundamentalists in Russia just simultaneously took two airliners down in a coordinated attack. Seems like aviation is still in their playbook.

[/ QUOTE ]

Riiight, and which news agency has reported that there was a cockpit intrusion that resulted in these planes being flown into buildings. Or how that an explosion set off by a suicide bomber could have been prevented by a wire fence next to the cockpit door. Terrorists have traditionally used airliners as place to carry out there acts because you have such a large “captive audience” and I am sure they will in the future, but shoe bombs and suicide belts can’t be prevented with cockpit fences. The terrorists are creative in thinking stuff up and so must we be in prevention.

[ QUOTE ]
Well it if is "well and good" then taking the final, logical step to secure the cockpit shouldn't be a controversial issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

It’s a great idea, but it’s an extra option, I am sure there a billions of other extra features that could increase safety. As Doug said there are already measures in place for leaving the cockpit. The doors are already secured. People will fight back this time. The plane will be shot down before reaching a target. TSA already takes your finger nail clippers.

After all if United doesn't get out of the red soon most of these planes with there fancy cockpit fence will be in the desert. I say wait until you return to profitability and have some extra money to install this option. UAL has to realize there not the US Government, they can't continue to spend more than they make forever.


[ QUOTE ]
gov't and industry seem to be putting way too much emphasis on preventing another 9/11 (and giving the people a false sense of security) and too little emphasis on stopping whatever the terrorists are going to do next.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly Right. The reason why they caught us so off guard with 9/11, no one had ever fathomed it. We were still looking for old fashioned car bombs, while they turned an airliner into a guided missile. If we don't stop with the window dressing, we'll be looking for old fashioned airliners used as guided missiles while they ____________________________.
 
I said we had security measures employed, but I didn't specifically state that I thought they were sufficient! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif "Good", yes, but "sufficient", I'm not too sure.

Here are some of my suggestions:

(a) More FAM's.

(b) Make it easier for pilots to join the FFDO program

(c) Better screening of passengers (biometrics are good, but terroristic tendencies aren't a genetic trait)

(d) A paradigm shift in attitudes.
* If there is another attempt to comandeer control of an aircraft, it isn't going t be a dark skinned middle eastern-looking person, it's going to potentially be someone you've never suspect in a million years -- ask the Russians about that one.

* More information. Let the general public know that no elected official is going to keep them safe -- security is a job for US ALL and isn't a political issue (don't get me started).

* Terrorism isn't going away. Israel has been fighting it tooth and nail since 1949 and 55 years later it's not a whole lot different.

(e) Creation of a non-partisan, 'action group' of sorts working with the FBI, CIA, NSA that only focuses on threats to air/land/sea transportation. Non-partisan meaning that it gets appointed with a new political croanie every change of president.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Make it easier for pilots to join the FFDO program


[/ QUOTE ]

Is the process hard? I don't know a whole lot about it...
 
[ QUOTE ]
It seems like this will allow the pilots to actually get up and take a crap without worrying about starting a big stink.

[/ QUOTE ]
Pun intended? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 
I'm waiting to see if the A380 and 7E7 will have flight decks which are well secured.
 
[ QUOTE ]
it's going to potentially be someone you've never suspect in a million years -- ask the Russians about that one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except that the women that attacked their planes were such a well known and common profile they had a moniker "Black Widows".

[ QUOTE ]
Terrorism isn't going away. Israel has been fighting it tooth and nail since 1949 and 55 years later it's not a whole lot different.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually terrorism has seen a significant decline in Isreal. And their airline has operated free of terror. Their number one weapon being intelligent profiling. But agree it's for the long haul.

Your other points are right on. I might de-emphasize FAMs in favor of lots and lots of FFDO.s. Much more cost-effective.
 
[ QUOTE ]
And their airline has operated free of terror.

[/ QUOTE ]

I heard a rumour once that El Al pretty much had no schedule. You just showed up, and at some point they said "Let's go." Kinda hard to hit that plane from a terrorist point of view, but it also really sucks from the passenger side. I guess it's that whole security/rights thing.
 
I think El Al has like 60 flights a day. It's a hell of a lot easier to secure that airline and to implement their security screening program with that kind of schedule. To put it in perspective, I'll bet that Delta operates more flights out of ATL in one hour than El Al operates all day! And American and United each do the same in ORD! Southwest probably does that as well at BWI!

Those who say, do it like El Al do not realize that their model is simply not scalable to the US. You've got a much bigger country, with a lot more people, and a lot more flights operating.
 
[ QUOTE ]


Yeah, I still contend that it took the original hydraulic/flight control design flaw plus the maintenance error to cause this crash. Remove the maintenace error and THAT crash doesn't happen, but with the design flaw eventually one of these airplanes was coming down. So I'd put more weight on that.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'll give the maintenance error, but the leading edge slats were torn away because the engine departed the aircraft in a way it wasn't designed to do. It departed in that way because of the type of damage sustained during installation that wouldn't have happened had the engine/pylon not been installed in a one-piece manner with a forklift. Any way you want to look at it, the corner-cutting maintenance practice created an unforeseen damage possibility that very likely wouldn't have existed had the established procedures been used.

[ QUOTE ]

But the way the history channel made it sound, using maintenance procedures "not approved" by the manufacturer was in itself negligent, when in fact it is an industry standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure they sensationalized it a bit, but when the "non-approved" maintenace practices work, no one notices. The minute it goes wrong (as in 191s case), then the airline buys it. Roll the dice to save time/money and you can win, but when you hit the snake eyes, you buy the fault. American's maintenance practice was perfectly legal, it was just a risky endeavor with some unforeseen consequences. They took the risk, 271 people paid for it. IMO, this stuff just needs to be taken more seriously by the airlines. It's not like cutting corners at Lou Grubb Ford's maintenance department when installing alternators on a 2002 Ford Crown Vic. Cutting corners in airline/aviation maintenance needs to have the possibilities researched far more in-depth before implementation.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I'll give the maintenance error, but the leading edge slats were torn away because the engine departed the aircraft in a way it wasn't designed to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

The leading edge slats were not torn away. In fact they retracted normally on their tracks. The design flaw was not having a lockout that prevented such an asymetrical retraction. Something that is now considered a standard, and which most airplanes had even then. The Douglas designers thought their triple hydraulic system was so redundant that no such protection was needed. When the slats retracted the left wing stalled and the airplane rolled inverted. Take that away and that airplane climbs out and makes a safe return.

[ QUOTE ]
Sure they sensationalized it a bit, but when the "non-approved" maintenace practices work, no one notices.

[/ QUOTE ]

They were "approved" procedures and were being used by at least three DC-10 operators.

[ QUOTE ]
The minute it goes wrong (as in 191s case), then the airline buys it. Roll the dice to save time/money and you can win, but when you hit the snake eyes, you buy the fault.

[/ QUOTE ]

The airline always buys it. It's the nature of the business. The lawyers make sure of it.

[ QUOTE ]
IMO, this stuff just needs to be taken more seriously by the airlines.

[/ QUOTE ]

The airlines take and have taken "this stuff" very seriously. They have engineering departments that rival the manufactureres. They spend a fortune on preventative maintenance and the final proof is that their safety record in this area has been undeniably stellar.

But there is no perfection anywhere when it comes to men and machinery. And when "journalists" try to sensationalize and make something sound criminally negligent and try to imply that the industry is full of evil people who will put customer's lives at risk for a dime, well I hope that on a forum like this we can put it in perspective. The airlines have to take these airplanes and operate them safely and at a profit, or there is no industry. The manufacturers have no such responsibility and have recognized for a long time that this is an area that the airlines excell at, not they. The safety record speaks for itself and as horrific as the 191 was, if that airplane had been designed properly those people would be alive today. And even that design flaw was a mistake, not a murderous plot to save a few bucks. The hysterical finger pointing is for journalists and especially lawyers. They painted this "criminal" picture and the History Channel ran with it. We're industry professionals or hopefuls. We should know better.

The bottom line for me is, I've gotten to fly a lot of fantastic airplanes over the years, including some of the original commercial jets. They were so well designed and so well maintained by the unsung heroes, the mechanics and engineers, that I bristle when they get trashed by lawyers and "journalists" who don't know what they are talking about. So I'm going to be on the mechanic's and engineer's side. It's my bias.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top