From: Paul Jakma (paulj at domain alphyra.ie)
Date: Wed 12 Sep 2001 - 23:36:48 IST
On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, Rick Moen wrote:
> begin Paul Jakma quotation:
>
> > so the cockpit would effectively not be pressurised?
>
> My goodness. That's a very bizarre misreading of what I said.
i, i thought perhaps you meant use pressure differential, seeing as
you mentioned pressure hulls, and seeing as how this is how main doors
are kept in place.
> (1) I did not say impermeable. I just said "security door".
>
> (2) If a complete cutoff _were_ deemed desirable, one might provide
> the cockpit with a separate air supply.
it already has one :)
every pressurised airplane must have full face masks and it's a supply
of air in case of depressurisation.
about sealing off cockpits: could be done, but i doubt it's practical.
esp. for long-haul flights. eg some big long-haul civil aviation
aircraft actually carry 2 crew. one sleeps, one flies. (duty time
regulations).
anyway, make airplanes 100% hijack proof and the terrorists'll find
something else. eg, New York is a deap-sea port, no? hijack a big boat
and ram it into the town. or they can go back to more traditional
methods: bombs.
perhaps the long-sighted answer is to make the world a more peaceful
place. eg, exactly why is it that a significant proportion of the
world's populace, the arabs, dislike the US - some to the extent that
they'll carry out suicide attacks against you.
figure that one out, talk to arab moderates, work out the concerns...
only then will you eliminate the threat. (unless you fancy living in a
police state - and even that won't make you safe).
--paulj
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu 06 Feb 2003 - 13:12:07 GMT