4 ms·

Yes, this is the part of the rules I find most confusing. Someone with the ability and desire to blow up a plane wouldn't do it unless they could be sure they

by bmm6o 17y ago

Yes, this is the part of the rules I find most confusing. Someone with the ability and desire to blow up a plane wouldn't do it unless they could be sure they were on approach to the destination? There would be more devastation if the plane crashed into a densely populated area, but he would give up if he couldn't maximize the impact? The only thing I can think is maybe it has more to do with the altitude of the aircraft and the hour window is whether the plane is on its final descent or not. Perhaps the explosion is not too powerful, and the pilot could recover in time if the plane is high enough? I'm not sure that's plausible.

waterlesscloud 17y ago
It's not too difficult to notice your plane is descending. And you know the length of the flight, within a reasonable tolerance. So timing can't be too hard. This rule makes no sense at all.
- ojbyrne 17y ago
  Nor is it difficult to look out the window and see that you're over an urban area.
dagw 17y ago
Let's say you are a terrorist organizer and have found a novel way to get a bomb onto a plane. Assume also that if you abort the mission before detonation chances are good you'll get the bomb off the plane without detection. You probably also realize that any method you use will only work once, so you want to make sure that one use is used to best effect. Given this I can see the logic in aborting a mission which would give a sub-optimal result given that there is a reasonable chance you can try again for a better result later.
- shin_lao 17y ago
  Being able to blow up the plane in the sky is terrorizing enough I think. You don't care about the death toll, you just care about the fear.
  - dagw 17y ago
    I imagine a plane crashing into a major city will bring far more terror than bringing a plane down in a desolate forest. Not only will be people be afraid to fly, they'll be afraid every time they see a plane overhead. Also imagine the the epic problems that will be caused if the powers that be declare in response that no commercial flights can fly over cities.
- bmm6o 17y ago
  As others have pointed out, you can look at the window and see where the city is. Also, while your argument may be otherwise logically sound, that's a long string of suppositions that I'm not convinced hold. Do you honestly think that what you've described is the rationale for the policy?

by bmm6o 17y ago

waterlesscloud 17y ago

It's not too difficult to notice your plane is descending. And you know the length of the flight, within a reasonable tolerance. So timing can't be too hard. This rule makes no sense at all.

ojbyrne 17y ago
Nor is it difficult to look out the window and see that you're over an urban area.

dagw 17y ago

Let's say you are a terrorist organizer and have found a novel way to get a bomb onto a plane. Assume also that if you abort the mission before detonation chances are good you'll get the bomb off the plane without detection. You probably also realize that any method you use will only work once, so you want to make sure that one use is used to best effect. Given this I can see the logic in aborting a mission which would give a sub-optimal result given that there is a reasonable chance you can try again for a better result later.

shin_lao 17y ago
Being able to blow up the plane in the sky is terrorizing enough I think. You don't care about the death toll, you just care about the fear.
- dagw 17y ago
  I imagine a plane crashing into a major city will bring far more terror than bringing a plane down in a desolate forest. Not only will be people be afraid to fly, they'll be afraid every time they see a plane overhead. Also imagine the the epic problems that will be caused if the powers that be declare in response that no commercial flights can fly over cities.
bmm6o 17y ago
As others have pointed out, you can look at the window and see where the city is. Also, while your argument may be otherwise logically sound, that's a long string of suppositions that I'm not convinced hold. Do you honestly think that what you've described is the rationale for the policy?