41–50 of 56 posts
On current domestic flights the flight door hinges are 2 inches from bathroom hinges. So if there's now the need for two doors (an airlock) will they be lengthening the plane 3 feet to allow for this?
Surely, three would be better.
Basically they want an air lock? Someone at the FAA has been playing too much Rust and getting door camped
It seems to me a second door should render the need of securing the primary door less necessary. That Germanwings flight haunts me more than any other in-flight scenario. So keep the new door secured like the existing primary. Make the primary unlockable with a key.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Passengers already know to not comply with hijackers. Since 9/11 everyone who has attempted something has gotten a beating and then restrained by passengers until an emergency landing could occur. I can't see an extra door helping much knowing that.
> Since 9/11 everyone who has attempted something has gotten a beating and then restrained by passengers until an emergency landing could occur. How many is everyone?
https://www.google.com/search?q=airline+passenger+duct+taped...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Should we for a hijacking to happen, then implement the solution?
Should we wait to see if a tiger lives under your bed before hiring a poacher to get it out?
It's just a door, I am pro literal defenses and against security theatre. Maybe if we shore up the cabin we can relax some of the other bullshit theatre going on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Should we wait to see if a tiger lives under your bed before hiring a poacher to get it out?
That's not exactly a logical comparison. We know the threat vector exists, we are already taking steps to defend against it (moving food cart in the way). It's just a door, I am pro literal defenses and against security theatre. Maybe if we shore up the cabin we can relax some of the other bullshit theatre going on.
Listen, I know a guy.. he works for free if you let him keep the carcass. You don't want to take risks with tigers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not exactly a logical comparison. We know the threat vector exists, we are already taking steps to defend against it (moving food cart in the way). It's just a door, I am pro literal defenses and against security theatre. Maybe if we shore up the cabin we can relax some of the other bullshit theatre going on.
Tiger attacks are far more common than plane hijackings, thousands of people are attacked by tigers every year. Listen, I know a guy.. he works for free if you let him keep the carcass. You don't want to take risks with tigers.
The tiger could probably jump over the cart though, maybe we should be worried.
Basically they want an air lock? Someone at the FAA has been playing too much Rust and getting door camped
I came here to say this. An airlock is exactly what they need. Although not necessarily literally an airlock in a sense that it needn't be airtight, but just that you can't open both doors simultaneously.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably not. The armoring of cockpit doors already stopped hijackings. I'm a bit baffled as to the benefit of a second one.
Has it? I've only read news stories about passengers jumping anyone that tries any thing.