4 ms·

> 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? H

> 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.
        staunch 4y ago
        Hopefully, yes, but we can't just ignore the tens of thousands of flights flying 2-3-4 hours from the nearest airport every year. Particularly because these are the biggest airplanes with the most passengers.
  - kelnos 4y ago
    Unless they were somehow able to keep the pilots completely unaware of what's going on, that wouldn't work. It's a pretty extreme response, and would risk passengers (assuming they're still alive), but depressurizing the cabin would pretty quickly stop any attempts to break into the cockpit. Even if attackers could get to supplemental oxygen in time, those little bottles don't last forever, and there'd be an opportunity for crew and passengers to regain control. I think there are other last-resort actions pilots could take to thwart a takeover, like engaging in extreme attitude/altitude changes in order to knock out the attackers. Remember, we're operating under the assumption that if the hijackers win, everyone on the plane is likely dead anyway, so putting passengers at risk to stop them should be considered acceptable. The only way attackers can realistically win is if a pilot is duped into letting them into the cockpit. Not impossible, but that reduces the possibilities quite a lot.
matwood 4y ago
> I believe the deterrent is the combination of these two changes. Yep. Pre-9/11, if your plane was hijacked, odds were that you would get out alive. Once 9/11 introduced the world to the suicide hijacker, that basically stopped hijackings. Passengers will simply overwhelm anyone trying to take over the plane because everyone assumes it's a suicide mission.
michaelt 4y ago
> Why are people going to attack each other for no reason? Hijackers typically do very obvious things, Given that passengers have suspected terrorism from such things as speaking Arabic [1] and doing math [2] I wouldn't recommend gambling on the smarts of the dumbest person on a given flight. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/16/southwest-airlines-man-removed-flight-arabic https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/16/southwest-ai... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/rampage/wp/2016/05/07/ivy-league-economist-interrogated-for-doing-math-on-american-airlines-flight/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/rampage/wp/2016/05/07/iv...
- staunch 4y ago
  You're not gambling on the dumbest person. You're gambling on the collective intelligence of dozens or hundreds of people, in coordination with a trained flight crew with access to cameras, radios, etc. Tens of millions of people have flown without incident and you can point to two people panicking over stupid things? That seems like strong evidence against what you're claiming. People are simply not as stupid as you seem to think.
  - kelnos 4y ago
    > You're not gambling on the dumbest person. You're gambling on the collective intelligence of dozens or hundreds of people I'd say that's worse. Mobs are usually way dumber than individuals.
    - staunch 4y ago
      You cut off half of the sentence to quote it out of context... And if you're right, why aren't mobs of Americans attacking suspected hijackers already? Why didn't passengers attack the guy speaking Arabic or doing math? The evidence, based on millions of successful flights, seems conclusive: people are just not this stupid.

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.
      - staunch 4y ago
        Hopefully, yes, but we can't just ignore the tens of thousands of flights flying 2-3-4 hours from the nearest airport every year. Particularly because these are the biggest airplanes with the most passengers.
- kelnos 4y ago
  Unless they were somehow able to keep the pilots completely unaware of what's going on, that wouldn't work. It's a pretty extreme response, and would risk passengers (assuming they're still alive), but depressurizing the cabin would pretty quickly stop any attempts to break into the cockpit. Even if attackers could get to supplemental oxygen in time, those little bottles don't last forever, and there'd be an opportunity for crew and passengers to regain control. I think there are other last-resort actions pilots could take to thwart a takeover, like engaging in extreme attitude/altitude changes in order to knock out the attackers. Remember, we're operating under the assumption that if the hijackers win, everyone on the plane is likely dead anyway, so putting passengers at risk to stop them should be considered acceptable. The only way attackers can realistically win is if a pilot is duped into letting them into the cockpit. Not impossible, but that reduces the possibilities quite a lot.

matwood 4y ago

> I believe the deterrent is the combination of these two changes. Yep. Pre-9/11, if your plane was hijacked, odds were that you would get out alive. Once 9/11 introduced the world to the suicide hijacker, that basically stopped hijackings. Passengers will simply overwhelm anyone trying to take over the plane because everyone assumes it's a suicide mission.

michaelt 4y ago

> Why are people going to attack each other for no reason? Hijackers typically do very obvious things, Given that passengers have suspected terrorism from such things as speaking Arabic [1] and doing math [2] I wouldn't recommend gambling on the smarts of the dumbest person on a given flight. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/16/southwest-airlines-man-removed-flight-arabic https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/16/southwest-ai... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/rampage/wp/2016/05/07/ivy-league-economist-interrogated-for-doing-math-on-american-airlines-flight/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/rampage/wp/2016/05/07/iv...

staunch 4y ago
You're not gambling on the dumbest person. You're gambling on the collective intelligence of dozens or hundreds of people, in coordination with a trained flight crew with access to cameras, radios, etc. Tens of millions of people have flown without incident and you can point to two people panicking over stupid things? That seems like strong evidence against what you're claiming. People are simply not as stupid as you seem to think.
- kelnos 4y ago
  > You're not gambling on the dumbest person. You're gambling on the collective intelligence of dozens or hundreds of people I'd say that's worse. Mobs are usually way dumber than individuals.
  - staunch 4y ago
    You cut off half of the sentence to quote it out of context... And if you're right, why aren't mobs of Americans attacking suspected hijackers already? Why didn't passengers attack the guy speaking Arabic or doing math? The evidence, based on millions of successful flights, seems conclusive: people are just not this stupid.