Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FAA Requires Secondary Flight Deck Barrier

faa.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–56 of 56 posts

Re: FAA Requires Secondary Flight Deck Barrier

#51

Post by George83728 »

ehnto wrote: post #48
George83728 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, let me know when a tiger grounds tens of thousands of flights, prompts an invasion and ushers in the post 9/11 security and privacy policies brought in by the war on terror. The tiger could probably jump over the cart though, maybe we should be worried.

Let me know when lack of double doors does any of that. That sort of issue was resolved more than 20 years ago when passengers learned they need to fight back or die.

The threat no longer exists. You're scared of imaginary tigers.

Re: FAA Requires Secondary Flight Deck Barrier

#52

Post by ehnto »

George83728 wrote: post #51
ehnto wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, let me know when a tiger grounds tens of thousands of flights, prompts an invasion and ushers in the post 9/11 security and privacy policies brought in by the war on terror. The tiger could probably jump over the cart though, maybe we should be worried.

Let me know when lack of double doors does any of that. That sort of issue was resolved more than 20 years ago when passengers learned they need to fight back or die. The threat no longer exists. You're scared of imaginary tigers.

I'm not scared, I live in a country with some sanity. But jetliners around the world also have flight deck doors. You are being a bit silly, airflight was new, a few pretty serious incidents occured, we put in some doors and the potential for it to happen again goes away.

It's less like an imaginary tiger and more like patching a really obvious risk with a cheap solution. Rather than relying on some wild dramatic movie hero scenario to play out, just close a little door. No big deal.

Re: FAA Requires Secondary Flight Deck Barrier

#53

Post by George83728 »

ehnto wrote: post #52
George83728 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me know when lack of double doors does any of that. That sort of issue was resolved more than 20 years ago when passengers learned they need to fight back or die. The threat no longer exists. You're scared of imaginary tigers.

I'm not scared, I live in a country with some sanity. But jetliners around the world also have flight deck doors. You are being a bit silly, airflight was new, a few pretty serious incidents occured, we put in some doors and the potential for it to happen again goes away. It's less like an imaginary tiger and more like patching a really obvious risk with a cheap solution. Rather than relying on some wild dramatic mov…

> But jetliners around the world also have flight deck doors.

That change (arguably itself unnecessary) was made in response an incident that happened shortly before that change was made. This new change is being made in response to... that same incident 20 years ago, which hasn't repeated.

The tiger doesn't exist.

Re: FAA Requires Secondary Flight Deck Barrier

#54

Post by Brian_K_White »

rascul wrote: post #38
tomschlick wrote: post #11

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?

all of them

Re: FAA Requires Secondary Flight Deck Barrier

#55

Post by Brian_K_White »

ses1984 wrote: post #22
dehrmann wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many hijackings has this resulted in, though? The existing solution seems to be good enough.

Should we for a hijacking to happen, then implement the solution?

Yes. This is not a useful line of argument since it has no boundaries. So yes, proposals need to be somehow justified.

Re: FAA Requires Secondary Flight Deck Barrier

#56

Post by grepfru_it »

George83728 wrote: post #31
grepfru_it wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> passengers don't tolerate anybody making trouble Examples of this? The shoe bomber is one, but the shoe bomber was solo. I don't know what a situation would look like in a 9/11 attack where you have 4-5 attackers. Esp in a widebody jet

Search for "restrained by passengers". Passengers and flight attendants duct-tape idiots to seats all the time. What is that has you suddenly so afraid of a repeat of a thing that last happened over 20 years ago?

Because the only example we have of passengers fighting back against multiple armed hijackers ended in flight 93. A single passenger is easy, see the shoe bomber. I don’t think everyone will get so righteous if 10 people were threatening a flight.

Armored flight deck doors are the real winner here

Post reply on HN