Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

I'm not sure this pans out logically.

Let's say there's no vault -- if the pilot and his fellow asassins are the flight crew (or the flight crew "has been disabled") who is going to fly the plane if they are all immobilized?

Granted, odds are better that there will be survivors if "some good guy" is "instructed from tower control" on how to land a jumbo jet than if it was directly flown into a building, but are those odds less than that any given pilot AND the flight crew will be hijackers in disguise? or that a demented pilot will somehow be able to "disable all other members" of the flight crew?

I dunno, but given my experience on our national highways, I'm not betting that any of my fellow passengers are going to be able to land a jumbo jet relatively intact. I'm not sure what the odds are that any given flight contains an experienced pilot, but I wouldn't bet the farm on that, either.

Also, despite the heroism displayed, the end result of flight 93 was no different than:

"Now the only solution is to shoot it down, with all aboard."

I think we need to continue to look for options.

Posted by cj at December 22, 2003 09:47 PM

Glad to see someone else jumping on this. Good points, thanks for making them in such a cogent fashion!

Posted by Laughing Wolf at December 23, 2003 03:30 AM

Rand, you lost me with this:

"But this administration continues to treat the people like a herd, rather than a pack, and so in the next incident, they may leave us even more defenseless, not only unable to save themselves, but this time, unable to save the White House or the Capitol Building.

And if the residents of those locations die, they'll fully deserve it for their elite arrogance and insufficient faith in the ability of free men to defend themselves and their country."

Considering your overheated reaction on space policy disagreements, I'm going to very carefully ask you if this means what it sounds like: That you believe that the President, the First Lady, the White House staff, members of Congress and their staffs might deserve death if they do not allow the arming of airline passengers? Am I reading this right? Are there any clarifications you would like to add?

In any case, the whole question of defending airliners from terrorists is the wrong one to ask. Once a terrorist boards a plane, or in my opinion gets any where near one, then the battle is already lost. Terrorists need to be identified, found, and dealt with long before they even think of carrying out another 9/11.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at December 23, 2003 03:46 AM

How about we stop allowing American flight schools to train pilots from certain countries, e.g. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc. We're putting ourselves at risk so a few entrepreneurs can make money training people who come here to kill us, and most people are too polite to mention this.

Posted by Diane L. at December 23, 2003 05:36 AM

One problem with this scenario: If the terrorist was at the controls from the time of takeoff, how do you expect the armed passengers to even know anything is wrong until perhaps a minute or less before impact?

This scenario requires armed passengers to react very quickly; such a hair trigger would invariably involve a high level of false positives..

And backing up further, why wouldn't the hypothetical terrorist pilot end up behind the wheel of a cargo flight instead? Even the most motivated parcels can't self-organize to protect themselves against a perceived threat..

Posted by Bill at December 23, 2003 05:39 AM

The story goes that possible terrorist/pilots fly for FOREIGN arilines, right? We have a certain amount of control over who flies for US arlines, and I would hope that we step that process up a notch (or three.)

We can't screen pilots for foreign airlines, of course, but the administration's post-9/11 plans (like arming pilots and armoring cockpits) don't apply to foreign airlines anyway.

If we can't do what Mark correctly insists is the right way to deal with this (do unto them before they do unto us) we're going to have to hope passengers manage to pull of a Flight 93, and/or we'll have to be ready to blow that plane out of the sky when it deviates from its flight plan.

You raise some good points, but to lambast the whole strategy doesn't really address the fact that the armed and armored pilots aren't the ones we probably need to worry about, anyway.

Posted by murdoc at December 23, 2003 05:43 AM

CJ ? most modern airliners can be flown for the entire trip via the autopilot, from takeoff to landing. This should ease your mind some about not having a fully trained pilot on board and being told how to fly the plane from the ground.

Posted by Jody Clukey at December 23, 2003 05:44 AM

If the pilot were the terrorist how would the passengers know? I think very few people would know if the plane was not on the proper course.

Even if some questioned the course, the pilot could say there was a mechanical problem and he had to land the plane at a different airport.

I agree with Mark - find the terrorists before they can do damage.

Posted by Brian at December 23, 2003 05:45 AM

Sad to say, but I have to agree with Rand. "And if the residents of those locations die, they'll fully deserve it for their elite arrogance and insufficient faith in the ability of free men to defend themselves and their country."

On many levels the current administration (and the Congress and Judiciary) have perverted the Constitution. Of course this has taken place over a very long period of time, and has been done with all the appropriate paperwork (legislation, executive orders and court cases).

I don't "believe that the President, the First Lady, the White House staff, members of Congress and their staffs might deserve death if they do not allow the arming of airline passengers?" I believe that it is a consequence of the actions of many years which have changed the nature of our society from one in which the people were sovereign, to one in which the government is sovereign.

I think there is a lot of merit to your suggestion when you say "Terrorists need to be identified, found, and dealt with long before they even think of carrying out another 9/11." If the government operated on this principle then we would have closed our borders. This is not the case, is it? When you answer the question "Why has the government responded in this way (borders still open, increased domestic surveillance using constitutionally dubious means, getting people to accept the loss of personal privacy in the name of safety)? then you will understand what the elites have planned.

Posted by R. Vance at December 23, 2003 05:54 AM

I'm pretty much with Bill's logic. Unless the pilot annouces his intent to do something, you're unlikely to realise as a typcial passenger that its anything other than bad tower instructions in the stack. Flying into Heathrow the ATC will have you all over the place some mornings.

Before 911 we were treated as sheep--if your airliner is hijacked, assume a docile position, let the grownups handle it, and hope that everything comes out all right.

To be fair, this wasn't all that silly a position.

Prior to 911 that was by far and away the best option as you were likely to walk away from anything after a protracted wait in the plane. You were probably under more threat from the special forces raid than the terrorists.

Now they should give us back proper cutlery - I can do far more damage with a broken glass or plastic fork than I can with a butter knife and a blunt metal one.

Posted by Dave at December 23, 2003 06:05 AM

Insane. Allow passengers to carry whatever weapons they like onto the plane? The I, if I were a terrorist, would carry onboard an assault weapon. Anyone who challenges me will be shot. If I can't hijack the plane, I simply shoot it out of the sky from within. Hell, I'm happy to die any which way, frankly.

The "let the passengers pack heat" argument is preposterous. There's also the inevitability of accidents. The accidental discharging of a weapon in an aluminum plane packed with aviation fuel would result in far more catastrophic depressurizations and/or explosions than thwarted hijackings.

Posted by The Gnu at December 23, 2003 06:05 AM

If a plane can be flown completely on auto-pilot, why not have a panic button that anyone can press that will cause the plane to circle the air on auto-pilot until law enforcement and aviation officials can assess the situation from the ground?

Now, if some idiot hits the panic button as a joke he should be ejected from the plane at 10,000 feet without a parachute.

Posted by nash at December 23, 2003 06:08 AM

Looks like we've identified two vulnerabilities here: the sealed cockpit door thing and the nomenklatura incapable of conceiving of decentralized authority thing. I wish I could be optimistic, but a Federal government that expends its law-enforcement resources looking for tweezers and bags of dope still has a great deal to learn. Let's hope they come around before there's too much additional loss of life.

Posted by Jay Manifold at December 23, 2003 06:11 AM

Cue Twilight Zone music...

I submit for your consideration the story of one Robert Hanssen, high ranking FBI official and Russian spy....

End Twilight Zone music...

The Hanssen scandal should make us all consider whether or not our officious bureaucrats really know what they are doing. Hanssen became a Russian (initially Soviet) spy while working for the FBI as an agent in the late 1970s. The FBI subjects its personnel to security checks far beyond what is possible for the populace at large. Hanssen remained a spy (off and on) until arrested in 2001.

There's more that's even more damning. Hanssen's brother-in-law, also a FBI agent, warned the agency in the early 1990s that it was possible Hannsen was a spy. A few years before Hanssen was arrested it was determined that a spy was obtaining important secrets. Did the FBI then begin investigating Hanssen? No, they focused on a CIA officer. They kept up the investigation of the CIA officer, even after determining the man was barely computer literate. One of the things known about the spy was that he was a computer expert. The FBI only identified Hanssen as the culprit after a Russian file became available that essentially fingered Hanssen. There's also some evidence that Hanssen had major psychological problems. Summing up, the FBI screwed up so royally that it calls into question their ability to protect us as they claim to do. In fact, my comment that FBI really stands for Feeble Brained Incompetents draws a chuckle from people of a wide range of political views.

Now these people are claiming that we should follow their every order, acquiesce to their every whim, to be safe. Readers of this blog, I am sure, will pardon my extreme skepticism.

Posted by Chuck Divine at December 23, 2003 06:14 AM

I've always thought that in a non-pressure loss emergency, the plane should drop a billy club for each passenger out of the ceiling. This would serve to arm the entire complement of passengers with a weapon that wouldn't endanger the plane. A couple of hijackers with guns would have a hard time against a hundred or so passengers with bats.

Don't let people bring weapons on the plane, GIVE them a weapon on the plane, one you choose.

Bolie IV

Posted by Bolie Williams IV at December 23, 2003 06:19 AM

"Insane. Allow passengers to carry whatever weapons they like onto the plane?" Passengers do carry weapons on airplanes today - sky marshals do, and they don't blow up the plane or gratuitously kill passengers). Pilots are also armed in a limited way (thanks to Underperformin Norman Mineta).

Posted by R. Vance at December 23, 2003 06:22 AM

"I believe that it is a consequence of the actions of many years which have changed the nature of our society from one in which the people were sovereign, to one in which the government is sovereign."

Go back to Social Studies. The government is an elected representation of public society. Society governs the country through their elected officials. People are sovereign based on the spirit of the law. The government has been sovereign according to the letter of the law since the founding of our country. If you believe that society should directly control policy making, law writing, national defense, etc. you are a fool. Ask yourself why we have the electoral college.

Posted by Giya at December 23, 2003 06:38 AM

A usenet post of mine from 9/12/2001 had no effect

``WJR Detroit reports one of the new federal regulations will be
no knives, even tiny ones on keychains.

``That's a bureaucracy in action.

``What you need is the opposite: hunting knives at every seat.
They won't damage the aircraft, and a hijacker has to deal with 300
angry armed passengers.''

Posted by Ron Hardin at December 23, 2003 06:43 AM

There are plenty of weapons on planes for anybody who wants one. Oxygen cylinders, wine bottles (the full size ones are generally in business and first), laptops (the older Dell's are quite formidable) and so forth.

Most carry a defibulator - that could be fun.

Posted by Dave at December 23, 2003 06:44 AM

>>And backing up further, why wouldn't the hypothetical terrorist pilot end up behind the wheel of a cargo flight instead? Even the most motivated parcels can't self-organize to protect themselves against a perceived threat..

Hmm... I see a sequel to "Cast Away"... "Wilson's Revenge"...

Posted by at December 23, 2003 06:44 AM

Wonderful. I'm set to take a Kuwait Airways flight from New York to London (en route to Mumbai) on the day after Christmas.

Considering what happened to an Egypt Air flight a few years back, someone should've thought of this possibility before.

Posted by Eric at December 23, 2003 06:48 AM

Actually Giya, I have a degree in History from the University of California. I know my social studies quite a bit better than you appear to do. I said nothing about direct democracy, though you have confused the issue in order to avoid the real issues I have raised. What I said was that our country does not run under the same principles as when founded. Some of that is good (ending slavery)- some is not (growth of government power). Using ad hominem attacks does nothing for your argument btw. I think perhaps you need to brush up on your rhetoric, your logic and arguments stink.

Posted by R. Vance at December 23, 2003 06:58 AM

I seriously doubt you could shoot down a modern airliner from within with an AK and 30 7.62x39mm rounds short of shoooting the pilot and trashing the controls.

Most modern planes can maintain pressure with two windows missing.

Not enough damage potential in one magazine to do that.

And yes I know how much damage this weapon can do from persoanl experinece.

Besides, I am sure Rand is referring to handguns and non-citizens cannot get concealed carry permits.

Posted by Mike Puckett at December 23, 2003 07:08 AM

Just echoing some of these arguments.

The odds of an Al Qaeda pilot seem fairly low to me, much lower than an Al Qaeda passenger with a plastic knife. Having said that I think the restrictions on nail clippers, etc., are fine. Sure that one kid put box cutters on some planes. But has anyone seen the type of stuff the airports have collected? Would you feel comfortable trying to sneak a knife on the plane? I feel a lot better about airline security. It's debatable as to whether or not it's even worth doing anything I suppose. But if the goal is to prevent another 9/11, I think they're on the right track.

Posted by CK at December 23, 2003 07:11 AM

Let passengers have a reasonable and regulated collection of armaments on aircraft. Low velocity ammunition? Shot only? Maybe let them have the whole damn arsenal.

There will be deaths. Foolish to deny it.

One of the great American truths is that accidental and murderous deaths from arming the populace are worth it. An armed populace tends to keep your incipient Stalins in check. Uncle Joe sure was a lot more destructive every week than every gun totin' nutbar in your whole coumntry for the last 200 years. The latest fad in Stalinist thought seems to be the Islamofascists and a well armed and determined populace is easily the best method of dealing with them.

Posted by Fred at December 23, 2003 07:26 AM

The real difference between Flight 93 and the other flights was information.

I'm working on half an idea right now but it seems that if the authorities on the ground could communicate with the people on the plane that many problems could be solved.

Gun in a keypad locked box in the passenger compartment? Passengers leave on their cell phones and the numbers are requested by the airline?

I need help fully baking this half-baked plan.

Posted by John Davies at December 23, 2003 07:33 AM

What motivates these jerks and their supporters? How about a public statement by our government that the next attack on our citizens by these people results in Mecca receiving the same treatment as Carthage - only slightly more modernized. Turn it to glass and cover it with pig crap. Yeah, I know, it's not fair, humane, civilized, pick your adjective. Well, neither is getting to work and facing the choice of jumping 100 floors or burning to death. We didn't start this war and whether or not it happens is entirely under their control.

Posted by Mark at December 23, 2003 07:36 AM

Very interesting piece and commentary! I posted a link to this on my own political discussion site.

Posted by alanH at December 23, 2003 07:45 AM

Rand,

This solution is not politically possible right now, and the business case is absolutely hare-brained. What airline would entrust a several million dollar asset, in a situation involving hundreds of millions of dollars in liability, to random armed passengers? How would they get insurance? Corporations use contigency plans and defined processes with standards and procedures to reduce risk. What you propose increases risk on every flight to prevent a truly rare event.

May I suggest that after you put on your libertarian individual hat to evaluate ideas like this that you take it off and put on your libertarian business owner hat for a second look. I have the right to tell my customers: "You may not carry weapons on my private property."

This government response to 9/11 has made me avoid airline travel completely since then. I take the train now. I would like to be able to anticipate flying with joy again, rather than dread. Keep thinking, folks, I'm sure we can do better.

Yours,
Wince

Posted by Wince and Nod at December 23, 2003 07:46 AM

Wrt to downing a passenger plane I think it depends on where you shoot it and what else is going on in the interim.

I'd need to look into again, as its been a while, but there are a few places where a few shots, or even a really unlucky, single one could do significant damage not necessarily to bring the plane down but perhaps enought to make it hard to fly.

Plus you wouldn't want chaos in the cockpit, a gun fight and a cabin depressurisation.

Posted by Dave at December 23, 2003 08:09 AM

Wince, airlines would "entrust a several million dollar asset, in a situation involving hundreds of millions of dollars in liability, to random armed passengers" every single day for about 30 years prior to the security checks of the seventies. Every single element of this proposal was a fact of life for years prior to the 70s hijackings.

As for accidental discharges in public, they don't happen. Period. There are hundreds of thousands of private citzens that carry every day, and you don't have bullets zinging all over the place. Even for reckless users, the vast majority of accidental discharges happen when someone is putting on or taking off thier weapon -- and that holds true not only for private citizens but also police.

May I suggest that after you put on your libertarian individual hat to evaluate ideas like this that you take it off and put on your libertarian business owner hat for a second look. I have the right to tell my customers: "You may not carry weapons on my private property."

That isn't the situation here. The government is the one saying it. Would American and Delta say that? Probably. Would Southwest (based in Dallas, Texas)? I think there is a good chance that they wouldn't, especially for flights that stay in, say, Texas as the surrounding states. If your departure and destination are both states that you can carry concealed legally, there is a good chance that they would give in to pressure by guys like me and let me carry.

Posted by Phelps at December 23, 2003 08:14 AM

If the pilots themselves are the terrorists, I can't see there's much to be done beyond shooting the plane down before it strikes. After all, given that the pilot probably wouldn't communicate his/her intentions to the passengers I can't imagine how anyone aboard...even someone intimate with airline procedures...could be clued into the situation until it's too late.

Even if the plane takes to flying extremely low in an urban setting, I think that humanity's endless capacity to rationalize situations would kick in. After all, there might be reasons beyond the ken of mere non-airline pilot mortals as to why this might be so. Who's going to risk their own life or risk jail, the lives of any family members who they may be with, or the lives of their fellow passengers in an attempt to stop a situation that may not actually be happening as they interpret? Sure, people may be frightened, but who in their right mind would try to smash their way into the pilot's compartment based on incomplete information? Would we want them to?

In addition, might not the remaining passengers assume that that this obviously over-the-top person trying to stir them up and stop the plane from 'crashing' was indeed the terrorist and try to restrain him/her?

Even if all the passengers were miraculously in agreement regarding the situation, once the plane goes into an attack dive, mere seconds remain anyway so what could be done? The passengers on Flight 93 were in possession of two important ingredients: information and time. That may not be the case ever again.

If there is a cadre of pilots out there who are trained terrorists then I can't see many options beyond restricting incoming flights to those whose pilots have been vetted in some way. As that won't happen I think we all need to accept, like the Israelis do, that no security system is perfect and that we just need to live our lives with the knowledge that some danger always exists.

Posted by Luis David Albright at December 23, 2003 08:18 AM

Archie Bunker had this solution back in the 1970's. He did a TV editorial on the show where he said that the way to stop hijackings was to arm the passengers. That way if anyone got up (to take over) they wouldn't get very far.

I haven't had much luck digging up the exact reference to that quote though, and I'm not sure if it was from "All in the Family", or "Archie Bunker's Place".

And to reply to John Davies' message - Information might be possibly sent to passengers on the screens of the AirPhones in the seat backs. I know some stock market info is sent to them when in flight.

Posted by Paul Dow at December 23, 2003 08:30 AM

But now we learn the (what should have been obvious) folly in our approach. What if the pilot is the hijacker? What if the pilot is the terrorist?....

I'm very surprised no one has mentioned this yet but the "what if the pilot is the terrorist" scenario is not mere speculation but something that has already occured, although not in the same way specifically,
by infiltration of Al-Qaeda operatives.

The case of the Egyptian Air 757 that crashed into the Atlantic several years ago seems to fit just such a chilling scenario, determined by the FAA to have been an intentional act by the co-pilot the investigation of which included the black box recordings of the co-pilot repeatedly reciting 'Allah Akbar' Great is Great, as he plunged the aircraft
into the ocean taking with him the hundreds of passengers on board.

Posted by at December 23, 2003 08:31 AM

Mark, stupidity has often been a capital offense since the dawn of time. Certainly those people in the White House and on Capitol Hill responsible for a policy that results in their death can be said to "deserve it," even if other innocents are lost who don't.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 23, 2003 08:34 AM

For my money, more effective security on the ground is a major part of the answer. Real security, not the PC show we have now.

Let's quit pretending that grandmothers and nuns are as dangerous as 20 something males. Particularly, but not exclusively, middle eastern or other foreigners.

These PC (that's Practically Cockroach - crawler that uses "feelers" rather than eyes and a brain to make decisions) types are the ones that are going to get you killed in the end, unless of course, you squash them.

Posted by Steven Raines at December 23, 2003 08:34 AM

"and a cabin depressurisation"

You are not going to significantly depressureize a plane with any small arm which could be practically carried onboard.

Posted by at December 23, 2003 08:36 AM

It's not proven that the Egyptian Air pilot deliberately brought down the plane. It's possible that he was reciting "Allah Akbar" because there was something wrong with the plane and he knew he was screwed. I know if I were at the controls of a plane that was plunging into the ocean, I'd be saying my Hail Marys and Our Fathers pretty quickly...

Posted by Peter at December 23, 2003 08:44 AM

It wasn't proven, but there were other indications that something was not right. If I recall, he had disabled certain controls...or monitors?

Posted by alanH at December 23, 2003 08:49 AM

Phelps,

But the seventies hijackings did occur, didn't they? When they did, the business changed. Permanently.

I'm just thinking of all the meetings I've sat in at the big company I work at. Meetings full of liberals and centrists and conservatives and even some libertarians. Plenty of immigrants from countries where no one was allowed to shoot. Lots of them experienced the seventies. "Take this jet to Havana" was a byword. This idea wouldn't make it out of the brainstorming session. If you presented it, three-fourths of the people in the room would be checking you for an extra head, while a few libertarians nodded. That's why it is politically impossible. If the brainstorming session was in the legal department this idea might be brought up, but only for comic relief.

I seriously doubt Southwest would adopt this method instate. When Missouri passed CCW the signs 'No Firearms Allowed' flew up on businesses all over the Kansas City metro, even on the Kansas side.

Most big companies don't allow their employees to carry any weapons on site, even though they could really save lives during those going postal incidents. Mine doesn't.

Corporations love control and they hate lawsuits. It's all about risk and contigencies. Let's say one of the passengers justifiably shoots an unruly passenger who is off his meds. His relatives sue Southwest for wrongful death. Sympathetic jury? If Southwest gets ten-percent liability on a big award they still lose. (Just imagine the lawyer: "Other airlines don't allow dangerous weapons on board. Why doesn't Southwest follow the sensible industry standards and not risk passenger lives?") Too much risk and too much uncertainty for too little gain. Not legally feasable. The liability situation has gotten worse since the seventies, not better. Read your McDonald's coffee cup, dude!

The gun in the locked box has more potential. Allowing the airlines more control over who can board with a weapon and what weapons they can carry has more potential. Volunteer sky-marshals, with all their training, has more potential. Standard CCW shall-issue on airplanes? More airline bankruptcies. Keep working, guys, and remember, if it isn't politically and legally feasable, it won't fly.

Yours,
Wince

Posted by Wince and Nod at December 23, 2003 08:55 AM

ANY static defence can be defeated with sufficant imagination and planning. We will continue to take losses and we will continue to fight back. Whoever gives up first loses.

Posted by Thomas at December 23, 2003 09:04 AM

There is another problem with reinforced cockpit doors that you have not mentioned.

In practice, these doors are routinely opened during flight -- for bathroom breaks, to bring in food, to remove trays, etc. During any one of these moments a terrorist could force his way in, kill the crew, and barricade himself in the cockpit.

Perhaps it's better to NOT have such string doors, so that the passengers could break back in in the event of a hijacking.

Posted by at December 23, 2003 09:07 AM

Everybody seems to go by the assumption that only 'Them darn furiners' are the people who can do this, And cry about freedoms lost to 'The True Americans'. How can somebody honestly say 'Dont restrict my Freedom', and 'Keep me safe' in the same breath? It cant be done, if you have your freedom, then all those dangerous people around you have the same freedoms.
As for allowing people to pack heat onto the airplane? That has to be one of the worst solutions I have ever heard. Even if you restrict the weapons to small caliber handguns carried by people who are licenensed in the departure and arrival locations. Here is a little scenario that is not far fetched at all.

Some guy, who is leagly carring, is taking a nap, the butt of his revolver is digging into his side a little. Half asleep he reaches down to adjust the holster location, and accidently snaps the strap off.
A different passenger, who is maybe a little on the egde because he hates to fly and is paranoid about hijackers, sees this. What do you think his reaction is going to be?
Even if he keeps his head, there is a good chance he will draw. The first guy wakes up to a barrel of a .38 in his face, Whats his reaction going to be?
And dont even think about putting yourself in this situation, you dont have to be a rocket scientist, or even that mentaly stable, to get a license to carry.
What makes you think that Al-Quada cant forge a permit?
The 911 hijackers had boxknives, a 3/4" blade. you dont need a planefull of sixshooters to take care of boxknives. And the more good guns you let onboard, the easier it is to get bad ones on.

Posted by Ralph at December 23, 2003 09:17 AM

It's not proven that the Egyptian Air pilot deliberately brought down the plane.....

It's not proven...

I must object to your dubious choice of words here. What are the standards you uphold that require something to be "PROVEN"? The FAA after a thorough investigation 'DETERMINED' that it was a deliberate act, which is good enough for me. What percentage of the beliefs you hold so near and dear are "PROVEN"?

Posted by at December 23, 2003 09:35 AM

I can think of only one good long-term defensive move:

Fill the skies with private air traffic.

Drastically push down the costs of owning and operating a private aircraft, getting a pilot's license, etc. I'd say we drop all the FAA requirements for the pilot and the plane, and simply require all pilots to carry $X in liability insurance; the insurance companies can then set their own standards and prices, and compete to establish the standards most related to actual safety.

Any way you cut it, having lots more private aircraft will do a couple of beneficial things:

1. Reduce the number of jumbo jets in service. A kid crashed a private plane into an office building in Florida; the only result was a slight improvement in the gene pool. Two jumbo jets crashed into office buildings in New York with drastically different results.

2. Reduce population densities as people commute hundreds of miles to work and other errands, businesses and factories have even less need to be located near each other, and so on. Lower population densities mean lower body counts from all sorts of attacks other than deliberate spread of highly infectious diseases. Dispersion works wonders against even the dreaded nuclear bomb.

Posted by Ken at December 23, 2003 10:25 AM

Here's a question:

What if it were a free country where -- in a "free market" -- one could start up an airline on whose airplanes passengers were subject exclusively to the dictates of the owners and operators of the airline instead of the government?

For one thing, I'm convinced that such an enterprise would find a ready market, but you should excuse me: I didn't mean to come here and make a sick joke.

Posted by Billy Beck at December 23, 2003 10:26 AM

I think people *like it* that there are governmental standards that airlines have to follow.

I think too that Ken's example will fall flat the first time some crop duster distributes a disease in a major city.

Posted by alanH at December 23, 2003 10:36 AM

If the aircraft only flies in the "free" country then no problem.

The difficulties will start if they try to fly outside their borders and land at airports and operate as an airline.

Posted by Dave at December 23, 2003 10:37 AM

"I think too that Ken's example will fall flat the first time some crop duster distributes a disease in a major city. "

1. They could do that now without too much trouble.

2. What major city? When homes and workplaces can be located a couple of hundred miles apart, people will be a lot more spread out, and that cropduster won't be racking up the body counts it can today.

Posted by Ken at December 23, 2003 11:21 AM

Ken: you're right it can be done now, but should it happen, it would certainly work against the idea that more, smaller planes makes for a safer situation overall.

Secondly, there are major cities. Those areas where homes are spread out would not be the most likely targets.

Posted by alanH at December 23, 2003 11:37 AM

The piece makes about as much sense as writing that there is no purpose in arming the Secret Service Agents as the asasssin will simply join the Secret Service and get President anyway.

Posted by charley at December 23, 2003 11:38 AM

The piece makes about as much sense as writing that there is no purpose in arming the Secret Service Agents as the asasssin will simply join the Secret Service and get President anyway.

That analogy is what makes no sense.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 23, 2003 11:46 AM

Ken: are you a pilot? I am. Here is an old, venerable, and true adage that you should think about: "Time to spare? Go by air."

Private aviation cannot possibly reach the ends that you propose, because it is simply not that consistently reliable a mode of transportation. Even instrument rated pilots run into constraints that they can't fly around or over or under, and the difference in competence between a VFR pilot and an IFR pilot is just huge. Only an infinitesimal percentage of the population has what it takes to hack that program, and, even then, it's not an all-access ticket. Some days, in some places, nobody flies.

Nothing about flying is as simple as it would have to be in order to make what you're talking about work out.

Posted by Billy Beck at December 23, 2003 11:47 AM

I think that Arab and Muslim societies gave rise to this problem, and American Muslims seem determined to see themselves as victims of democracy rather than stand up against terrorists groups.

We already had an Egyptian pilot who crashed an airliner, so I suppose something similar will happen again. I think that arming passengers would cause more problems that it would solve.

The only way I can see working is to identify possible terrorists and watch them closely, build cases against them and arrest them. I don't know how we can do that effectively when we consider the FBI as more dangerous than the terrorists. It's the very openness of our society and the fact that we have a few million people living among us that nobody knows anything about that makes us so vulnerable. The constitution doesn't guarantee privacy, only freedom from "unreasonable" searches and seizures. What is "unreasonable" varies with the nature of the threat or suspected criminal activity. But politically, we won't give up what we consider our rights, even if it's necessary to protect ourselves.

I wish we would pay more attention to our personal obligations to our society and to protect it, and less of being free from all restraints.

Posted by AST at December 23, 2003 12:38 PM

Back on topic,
Let the record show that the sucess rate for passenger revolts is %50 - while UA 93 was likely brought down by its passengers, AA 77 (whose passengers was informed of the WTC attacks by the Solicitor-General of the United States himself!) still hit the Pentagon. (I'm ignoring the Richard Reid affair as in that case the plane was the target). The passengers of UA 93 had some advantages - there were only four hijackers, and the plane was late taking off, but that illustrates ways that a successful hijacking might be planned - have numbers and don't dither. Even in the post 9/11 environment I reckon typical passengers (people with something to lose) would hestitate before a suicide charge.

I think charley does make a good point (you can tell by the ad hominem :) ) - at some point you do have to trust somebody. I dont know the current setup - but anybody flying a widebody internationally should have a security component to their certification.

And to go off topic, what are the security implications of the Randian vision of cheap access to space? What is the difference between an incoming X-Prize winner and a MIRV? May have been thrashed out here...

Cheers,
Duncan

Posted by Duncan Young at December 23, 2003 12:38 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/12/23/threat.level/index.html

What I want to know is what they were doing before 12/1?

Posted by ken anthony at December 23, 2003 12:49 PM

Point 1) The average passenger won't know anything is wrong if the pilot is the hijacker, until either A) they slam into some fixed object, B) one of the passengers notices that they are in the wrong place or doing the wrong thing (I don't know about you, but I know if we're at 10,000 feet and still doing 400 knots, my internal alarms would be bonging), or C) the F-16 shoots them down. Unless the pilot announces "I've killed the co-pilot and we're going to do a loop through the St. Louis Arch now", most folks would be none the wiser. Even with all of the daffy stuff happening on 9/11 (transponders being turned off, radio calls going unanswered, unannounced changes in altitude and direction), our crack homeland defenders managed not to get any protection in place until a minute too late.

Point 2) That said, I agree with the sentiment that we haven't done anything to make air travel any safer, just considerably more annoying.

Posted by Patrick at December 23, 2003 12:52 PM

Oh, and Point 3) Get me up to the flight deck. I've landed a 737 AND a 747 on Flight Simulator and I think I can handle the job.

Posted by Patrick at December 23, 2003 12:54 PM

"Private aviation cannot possibly reach the ends that you propose, because it is simply not that consistently reliable a mode of transportation."

Not yet. Of course, neither were automobiles, before Henry Ford changed them from a rich hobbyist's toy to a mass-market replacement for the horse.

It's about time we allowed the same thing to happen to personal aircraft. It's been a hundred years since the Wright Brothers' flight; it's a complete travesty that we're all still crawling along in groundcars to get to work.

"an infinitesimal percentage of the population has what it takes to hack that program, and, even then, it's not an all-access ticket. Some days, in some places, nobody flies."

Again, the same could be said for automobiles once upon a time.

An infinitesimal percentage of the population devotes the time necessary to hack that program, because buying and owning a plane is bloody expensive, and planes are expensive because the market is so small. No one has reason to build airplanes that can be flown by people who can't or won't hack that program, because such people aren't allowed to fly them.

Let competing insurance companies evaluate pilots and airplanes, and price their offerings accordingly, and you'll see better and easier-to-learn aircraft controls, more stable airplanes, more pilots, a bigger market, cheaper airplanes, then even more pilots, then even easier controls and more stable airplanes and airplanes that can handle more varied conditions, then more pilots, then a bigger market, then cheaper airplanes, then even more pilots, and so on.

"Nothing about flying is as simple as it would have to be in order to make what you're talking about work out."

Of course not. We're still in the Dark Ages when it comes to personal aircraft. Hell, an awful lot of pilots are flying around with 40 year old equipment. But when people are allowed to buy and sell and use new things without spending lots of time and money playing Mother May I, those things have a way of getting a lot cheaper, simpler to use, faster, and more reliable in a hurry. (See the computer industry, or the early automobile industry, for examples).

Posted by Ken at December 23, 2003 01:47 PM

Just think about how cheap, easy-to-use, and foolproof computers would be if no one but Computer Science graduates were allowed to touch them.

That's about how cheap, easy-to-use, and foolproof personal aircraft are. And for the same reasons.

Posted by Ken at December 23, 2003 02:00 PM

If the terrorist is the PILOT in the cockpit and the plane is taking off from or landing at a major airport within mere minutes of big buildings or athletic arenas located in big cities, it is likely the plane will be in pieces in a fireball within such a big building or athletic arena long before a passenger has even the vaguest clue something is amiss.

Armored doors good. Firearm toting pilots -- good. Careful screening and ongoing investigation of pilots -- good. Banning Muslim pilots from the cockpit -- better, but ain't gonna happen.

Posted by REVOLTING at December 23, 2003 02:19 PM

"Just think about how cheap, easy-to-use, and foolproof computers would be if no one but Computer Science graduates were allowed to touch them.

That's about how cheap, easy-to-use, and foolproof personal aircraft are. And for the same reasons."

I wondered if you were a pilot, Ken.

I have my answer.

You have no serious idea what you're talking about.

Posted by Billy Beck at December 23, 2003 02:27 PM

I have to agree with Billy. It's one thing to be clueless sitting in front of a PC, quite another to be clueless at the controls of an airplane.

Posted by alanH at December 23, 2003 02:30 PM

Wolfgang Langewiesche once wrote that most people, if they sit and stare at it long enough, will get the idea in their heads that they can get an airplane off the ground, around the pattern, and back down again.

That is a horribly true fact.

I'm not here to be mean, but the world is full of 'em.

Posted by Billy Beck at December 23, 2003 02:56 PM

Billy Beck writes:

That is a horribly true fact.

Well, I'm not a pilot either, so in your mind I guess that will disqualify me from commenting, but I'd like to point out that you have completely ignored Ken's argument in favor of an ad homenim attack. He isn't claiming that today's aircraft are suitable for mass aviation, he's claiming that it is possible to make such aircraft, and that if the law allowed competition it would happen. This strikes me as a quite reasonable position. I propose that it would even be possible today to put a microcomputer in a small plane that could handle most of the routine flying tasks, including takeoff and landing.

Given enough research, there is no reason the typical "pilot" of the future wouldn't get into his private plane, say "Take me to the X airport.", push a button and sit back to read a magazine for the flight.

Posted by Dave Gudeman at December 23, 2003 04:19 PM

"...you have completely ignored Ken's argument in favor of an ad homenim attack.

No, sir: I most certainly have not. I completely understand this...

"He isn't claiming that today's aircraft are suitable for mass aviation, he's claiming that it is possible to make such aircraft, and that if the law allowed competition it would happen.

...and I say it's romantic nonsense. And you can accuse me of "ad hominem" if you want to, but the fact of the matter is that, between Ken and me, I'm the one who has confronted and prevailed over the challenges of flight. I speak with the authority of knowledge wedded to experience.

Flight is something elemental, in the same way that being on the ground is elemental, but a different element. It presents demands that are never -- ever -- going to be subject to, say, comparisons with other advances in technology like computers. We have made astounding strides in the past one hundred years and six days, but it is always going to be a fact that when human beings take leave of the earth in order to navigate that heaving ocean of air above us, we will be doing something utterly unique and quite disconnected from every other experience in our lives.

You don't have to believe me. But, then, I don't believe you've ever been in charge of an airplane that was going to do something that you didn't think it would, until it did it. The variations on that kind of thing are so endlessly variable that you very likely wouldn't believe it. And the difference of importance is the difference between pulling over on the side of the road and not being able to do that in the air, with all attendent consequences.

Like it or not: if you want to fly, you need to know what it's about. That's just the way it is.

Posted by Billy Beck at December 23, 2003 04:49 PM

Atonomous personal aircraft?

Rand, what do you think of Mr Moller's efforts in this arena?

www.moller.com

Posted by Mike Puckett at December 23, 2003 06:27 PM

Oh, I've been involved in this interminal arguement since '68. Sigh. At that time the beginnings of the hijacking era had begun. I am
quite sure that some pilots started carrying hand weapons. Against company policy, "just take them where they want to go". Mostly that worked, sometimes it didn't: Eastern into Boston had both DC-9 pilots shot before overpowering the murderous idiot (who had wanted the crew to fly out over the Atlantic in a spectacular, 'run out of fuel' suicide), and landing safely at Boston (I recall the Captain died). Pilots started to carry handguns (though maybe they had before).
I think that I knew some of these 'armed pilots', though I could not be sure (they did not talk about what would be a breach of company regulations). I recall a Captain X who claimed to own a 45 caliber (Thompson) sub-machine gun, fully paid up in federal tax, and legal (about $350 then ?), who in training himself fired it off his rural Wisconsin back porch. Waiting, he said, for the yellow hordes to appear over the horizon. He also claimed to, right then, carry, in a crotch holster, a 45 Cal. Colt semi-auto handgun, all of the time. All in all, a bit crazy maybe, but not really some sort of dangerous awk-awk. He eventually retired without incident..
That was in the time of the company 'rules' against carrying such weapons by pilots. That was also during the era of the hijackings (mostly to Cuba, mostly by black radicals, Jum-jum bah-bah Kwannzass). That was when no one was rendered through metal detectors.
So that was before the LaGuardia storage locker bomb blew off the legs of a Marine and damaged many other folks, not to mention the terminal. Metal detectors were then installed @ La Garbage(about 100 handguns were found in the first week in trash containers at LaGuardia). Pretty obviously not from hijackers. Storage lockers moved inside the secured terminal. The federal functionaries had begun to win. They have won ever since, working on fear in the populace. Fear, you see, is the real enemy.
Many of you (old enough) know the ensuing cramp down. Laid off airline pilots made up a significant fraction of the original 'air marshalls'. Specially trained, of course, but probably good even if 'untrained'. That program almost disappeared later.
Every Major or minor airline Captain, or co-pilot, however aviation 'rated', should be carrying a handgun, ready to hand. The cockpit intrusion should not be about, "hey get out of here!" at all, it should be about "bang, bang you're dead". Or some minor variation on that. I spent decades on the flight deck of our airlines (3 of them). My solution may not be perfect, but it will be effective overall. Kill them.
Also! Allow any armed passenger who so wishes. Boeing cites good control of pressurization if any window (16 x 12 or so, maybe two such in larger 747s) is blown out by gunfire. Look folks, these aircraft are not some kid's pricked balloon. Beyond that there is something called an "emergency descent", practiced by all airline pilots.
As to the original "pilot/crew decides to crash the aircraft into the Sears Tower thingy". Well yeh, that could happen, but so could your capture and reprogramming by aliens. The Egyptian co-pilot was maybe, er, 'crazy'? The Fedex pilot deadheader was probably also 'crazy' (I note that he's not even mentioned here). Sure. OK, that's two over maybe 50 years. How many passenger 'crazies' have we got, - maybe 78? in the last ten years?. I say, "go with the pilots", they got you there last time, didn't they! And believe me, most of MY passengers never realized that on 'that particular flight' they had a 'near death experience', though I knew it and quite well. (Maybe twice in 25 years). Hi-Tech is actually low-danger, you should know. We worked at an occupation that strived to become more and more boring and routine all the time.
There is a certain amount of interesting, though somewhat ignorant musings here. Some others not worth any rejoiner at all. Nice to see you're paying attention though.
25 year Airline Pilot, 23 year fighter pilot. G

Posted by at December 24, 2003 12:54 AM

Post a comment