5 ms·

Seems like we could very safely abolish the air marshal program. It may have been useful pre-9/11 but Flight 93 seems to prove that it's not necessary anymore.

Seems like we could very safely abolish the air marshal program. It may have been useful pre-9/11 but Flight 93 seems to prove that it's not necessary anymore. Anyone attempting to hijack a flight full of Americans is going to be attacked every single time, and terrorists surely know this, and that's the real deterrent. Hijackers might think they can overpower a single armed officer but they know they can't overpower dozens of passengers that feel forced to fight or die. It might even be a good idea for pre-flight training videos to explicitly tell passengers to immediately attack anyone attempting to hijack the plane. Though this is probably unnecessary, it could act as a strong additional deterrent and help coordinate people in the event.

jopsen 4y ago
> It might even be a good idea for pre-flight training videos to explicitly tell passengers to immediately attack anyone attempting to hijack the plane. You'll have a lot of passengers attacking each other for no reason. This is a remarkably bad idea. Fact is: plane hijackings isn't really a problem anywhere. Low-tech solutions like locking the cockpit goes very far. Stopping those really determined is probably hard/impossible, the best tools is probably old school humint. But it's probably best to accept that attacks are not impossible. Spend the money on something else.
- staunch 4y ago
  > You'll have a lot of passengers attacking each other for no reason. This is a remarkably bad idea. Why are people going to attack each other for no reason? Hijackers typically do very obvious things, like try to break into the cockpit and make announcements/threats to the passengers. The training video could tell passengers to attack anyone trying to break into the cockpit or to wait to attack until the pilot instructs them to, etc. It would take a bit of thought for sure. > Fact is: plane hijackings isn't really a problem anywhere. Low-tech solutions like locking the cockpit goes very far. They're not a problem since 9/11 when passengers attacked the hijackers and then cockpit doors were reinforced. I believe the deterrent is the combination of these two changes.
  - jcadam 4y ago
    > attack until the pilot instructs them to... Woah, that's... a bad idea.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - notfromhere 4y ago
    You basically can't break into the cockpit anymore.
    - staunch 4y ago
      A team of hijackers could almost certain break the cockpit door given sufficient time (maybe hours) of unfettered access to do so.
      - mrguyorama 4y ago
        They would require a lot of tools that would be difficult (not impossible, TSA is garbage) to smuggle onto the plane.
        staunch 4y ago
        Smuggled tools, some kind of creative solution using onboard materials, a weakness they've discovered, etc. In order words, its not safe to assume a team of intelligent and motivated hijackers couldn't break into a cockpit given sufficient time. But it is safe to assume that the reinforced cockpit door will slow hijackers enough that passengers have time to stop them.
        SoftTalker 4y ago
        Unless over the middle of the ocean, most flights are probably close enough to an emergency diversion landing that "sufficient time" would be unlikely.
sixstringtheory 4y ago
> Flight 93 seems to prove that it's not necessary anymore That flight crashed killing everyone on board.
- andirk 4y ago
  Locking the flight deck door, like the terrorists did, has probably been the biggest security upgrade since that day.
  - hedora 4y ago
    There have been multiple cases of "suicide by jet airliner" where the pilot waits until they are alone in the cockpit, then locks the door, and kills everyone on board by crashing the plane. They were overseas, with overseas airlines. Anyway, the door isn't a panacea.
    - andirk 4y ago
      To my knowledge, there is no panacea for human security on airlines, or anywhere ever. My point is locking the door would have likely stopped all 9/11 hijackings and maybe others where the hijacker took over the cockpit. I've been especially interested in aviation recently, but I think I will pick up the hijacking dangers portion down the road.
- toast0 4y ago
  The lesson about consequences of letting your plane be hijacked was learned and applied in less than two hours. Nobody on that flight made it to their intended destination, including the hijackers. Now that it is known that passengers will attack would be hijackers and that cockpit doors will be locked, making it hard to get control of the plane, the risk/reward for hijacking looks poor. That shooting down hijacked flights was authorized may also be a deterent, altough realistic response time is long, so maybe not a big factor. Terrorists are better off doing something else.

jopsen 4y ago

> It might even be a good idea for pre-flight training videos to explicitly tell passengers to immediately attack anyone attempting to hijack the plane. You'll have a lot of passengers attacking each other for no reason. This is a remarkably bad idea. Fact is: plane hijackings isn't really a problem anywhere. Low-tech solutions like locking the cockpit goes very far. Stopping those really determined is probably hard/impossible, the best tools is probably old school humint. But it's probably best to accept that attacks are not impossible. Spend the money on something else.

staunch 4y ago
> You'll have a lot of passengers attacking each other for no reason. This is a remarkably bad idea. Why are people going to attack each other for no reason? Hijackers typically do very obvious things, like try to break into the cockpit and make announcements/threats to the passengers. The training video could tell passengers to attack anyone trying to break into the cockpit or to wait to attack until the pilot instructs them to, etc. It would take a bit of thought for sure. > Fact is: plane hijackings isn't really a problem anywhere. Low-tech solutions like locking the cockpit goes very far. They're not a problem since 9/11 when passengers attacked the hijackers and then cockpit doors were reinforced. I believe the deterrent is the combination of these two changes.
- jcadam 4y ago
  > attack until the pilot instructs them to... Woah, that's... a bad idea.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- notfromhere 4y ago
  You basically can't break into the cockpit anymore.
  - staunch 4y ago
    A team of hijackers could almost certain break the cockpit door given sufficient time (maybe hours) of unfettered access to do so.
    - mrguyorama 4y ago
      They would require a lot of tools that would be difficult (not impossible, TSA is garbage) to smuggle onto the plane.
      - staunch 4y ago
        Smuggled tools, some kind of creative solution using onboard materials, a weakness they've discovered, etc. In order words, its not safe to assume a team of intelligent and motivated hijackers couldn't break into a cockpit given sufficient time. But it is safe to assume that the reinforced cockpit door will slow hijackers enough that passengers have time to stop them.
        SoftTalker 4y ago
        Unless over the middle of the ocean, most flights are probably close enough to an emergency diversion landing that "sufficient time" would be unlikely.

sixstringtheory 4y ago

> Flight 93 seems to prove that it's not necessary anymore That flight crashed killing everyone on board.

andirk 4y ago
Locking the flight deck door, like the terrorists did, has probably been the biggest security upgrade since that day.
- hedora 4y ago
  There have been multiple cases of "suicide by jet airliner" where the pilot waits until they are alone in the cockpit, then locks the door, and kills everyone on board by crashing the plane. They were overseas, with overseas airlines. Anyway, the door isn't a panacea.
  - andirk 4y ago
    To my knowledge, there is no panacea for human security on airlines, or anywhere ever. My point is locking the door would have likely stopped all 9/11 hijackings and maybe others where the hijacker took over the cockpit. I've been especially interested in aviation recently, but I think I will pick up the hijacking dangers portion down the road.
toast0 4y ago
The lesson about consequences of letting your plane be hijacked was learned and applied in less than two hours. Nobody on that flight made it to their intended destination, including the hijackers. Now that it is known that passengers will attack would be hijackers and that cockpit doors will be locked, making it hard to get control of the plane, the risk/reward for hijacking looks poor. That shooting down hijacked flights was authorized may also be a deterent, altough realistic response time is long, so maybe not a big factor. Terrorists are better off doing something else.