It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

United planes were told to secure cockpit

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2007 @ 10:58 PM
link   
And that had NOTHING to do with Operation Bojinka, which is what I was talking about. Wave two of Operation Bojinka was never passed on to the FAA until much later.




posted on Apr, 6 2007 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
And that had NOTHING to do with Operation Bojinka, which is what I was talking about. Wave two of Operation Bojinka was never passed on to the FAA until much later.


But what about the other hijackings and planned bombings the FAA was told about ? Is the FAA stupid or are they just incompetent ?



posted on Apr, 6 2007 @ 11:07 PM
link   
Like I said before, have you ever worked with them? If you have, you wouldn't have to ask that question. The FAA won't do anything until after a major incident, and then they'll take years for their decisions to be implemented.



posted on Apr, 6 2007 @ 11:31 PM
link   
Zaphod58

So according to you they had no plan for someone breaking in the door?



posted on Apr, 6 2007 @ 11:35 PM
link   
On the contrary, flight crews had plans for if they were hijacked. It's well documented. You give the hijacker whatever they want, get the plane on the ground, try to keep everyone alive, and let them negotiate, or as a last resort storm the plane. But you don't give the hijackers an excuse to kill passengers.


FAA developed the crew member security training guidance,
referred to as Common Strategy I, in the early 1980's in response to
numerous hijacking incidents in the late 1970's. Common Strategy I
generally instructed air carriers to develop training programs that
called for flight and cabin crew members to cooperate with threatening
passengers or hijackers and slow compliance with their demands.
Based
on this guidance, FAA also developed corresponding security training
standards that set forth the requirements for flight and cabin crew
member security training.

www.gao.gov...

[edit on 4/6/2007 by Zaphod58]



posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
On the contrary, flight crews had plans for if they were hijacked. It's well documented. You give the hijacker whatever they want, get the plane on the ground, try to keep everyone alive, and let them negotiate, or as a last resort storm the plane. But you don't give the hijackers an excuse to kill passengers.
[edit on 4/6/2007 by Zaphod58]


But you also don't just give up control of your aircraft. Thats basic common sense. You go along with them as much as you can but thier is a line when you do not give up control.

Please show me any other hijackings that the pilots have given up control of thier aircraft, or where it states in training that you give up your aircraft.



posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 10:46 AM
link   
It doesn't state that, but if the choice is your life or giving up control, most people are going to give up control. At least if you do that, then there's a chance you can get it back later. If you were a pilot of a plane, and someone came in holding a knife to your throat, you're telling me that you wouldn't give up control of that plane? Or they threatened to blow up the plane killing everyone that you were in charge of keeping safe you wouldn't? Their training was TO KEEP THE PASSENGERS SAFE AT ALL COSTS, and if that meant giving up control of the plane to keep them from blowing it up, then I'm sure they would.



posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
At least if you do that, then there's a chance you can get it back later. If you were a pilot of a plane, and someone came in holding a knife to your throat, you're telling me that you wouldn't give up control of that plane?


Well if had military or police training (police training for me) and military training for the pilot of flight 77, someone comming in the cockpit with a boxcutter would not scare me too bad.

As stated i would go along with his demands up to the point of handing over control of the plane. Then we might have a fight about that, because at that point i think i could think what might happen if he took over control of the plane.

[edit on 7-4-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Pilots, even with military police training, are responsible for keeping the lives of their passengers and crew safe. If someone is threatening that, or their, or their crews' life, they're going to do whatever they want. I've known several pilots, most of them military that have said they would have given up control of a plane in that situation. Their thinking is that as long as you're alive, there's hope. Not to mention that the cockpit of a plane is the LAST place you want to be fighting someone for control. THEY hold all the advantages. You're strapped into a seat, that's going to take time to get out of, THEY are standing in the small area that is open, THEY are prepared and ready to fight you, when you're going to be taken by surprise. Even with a warning, there's going to be a short period of time when the pilot is thinking "This can't be happening to me!" and that delay is precious. The biggest advantage of all is the simple fact that if they knock you backwards, you're going to hit the controls and risk the safety of the plane.

I don't care if you have military police training or not, you DO NOT FIGHT FOR CONTROL IN THE COCKPIT. Anyone who says they would has NO IDEA of what a cockpit is like on those planes. You give up control, and you stay a live, and you make plans to get it back if it looks safe to do.



posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Pilots, even with military police training, are responsible for keeping the lives of their passengers and crew safe. If someone is threatening that, or their, or their crews' life, they're going to do whatever they want. I've known several pilots, most of them military that have said they would have given up control of a plane in that situation.



Yes they are reponsible for keeping thier crew and passengers safe, thats why a pilot should not give up control of the plane.

Well i do not think i would fly in a plane with pilots who would give up control of thier plane that easy, we have seen what happens when they do.



posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 09:59 PM
link   
And prior to that day they never saw what would happen if they did, and since that day you WON'T see them give it up. But ON that day, they chose to give up control of the plane instead of fighting in the cockpit, which would have been the DUMBEST choice they could have made.



posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
which would have been the DUMBEST choice they could have made.


Oh really, I for one beleive if they would not have turned over control a couple thousand people might be alive.

And i still cannot figure out why they could not have gotten off a call or signal, specially the ones who had been talking to ATC at the times when the hijackers supposidly came into the cockpit.



posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 10:13 PM
link   
So you think that trying to unstrap from your seat, while the hijacker holds the advantage, and trying to fight them in that tiny little area, where you can EASILY cause major problems, or even to crash is a good idea? Then I'm glad you aren't a pilot.

Yes, thousands might be alive today, but the pilots had no way of knowing that.

As for getting the call off, the first thing the hijackers probably did was to tell them not to use the radio, if they didn't storm the cockpit and immediately slash their throats. One of the flights ATC did hear them storm the cockpit and a pilot killed, Flight 77's pilots were probably told not to contact anyone when they stormed the cockpit. The pilots would have gone along with this to try to keep them calm.



posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
So you think that trying to unstrap from your seat, while the hijacker holds the advantage, and trying to fight them in that tiny little area, where you can EASILY cause major problems, or even to crash is a good idea? Then I'm glad you aren't a pilot.



Thats right it is a tiny area, which makes it hard for the atacker to get to you and fight as well.

It was good timming when the FAA pulled the regulation that aloud pilots to carry guns in the cockpit just months before 911

I do not believe the BS about not having the seconds it takes to make a call or punch 4 digits on the transponder. Specially flight 93 who had not 1 bit 2 messages about problems going on and should not have been surprised by the hikackers.



posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 10:42 PM
link   
And how long do you think it takes you to unstrap, stand up, turn around, and get away from the control yoke so that you CAN fight? And what do you think the hijackers are going to be doing during that time? Standing there waiting for you to do all that?

Erm, I hate to break this to you, but pilots carrying guns in the cockpit was never happening ANYWAY. It was up to each airline to apply for permits for their pilots to carry guns, and put them through an FAA approved weapons class. IN 40 YEARS NOT ONE AIRLINE ever even APPLIED. The worldnutdaily article that most people source as the claim it was rescinded even says that right in it. It wasn't taken off the books to get ready for this event, it was taken off the books because no one ever even tried to arm their pilots.



posted on Apr, 7 2007 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
And how long do you think it takes you to unstrap, stand up, turn around, and get away from the control yoke so that you CAN fight? And what do you think the hijackers are going to be doing during that time? Standing there waiting for you to do all that?


Oh like a hijacker with a boxcutter is going to stab me from the door. He will need to get to me up close. Which anyone who knows basic self defense can defend against, even probly while strapped into a seat.

We were trained on how to aviod and take knives and guns away that were inches away, even if people were standing behind us. Its very basic self defense.

Oh, and you might want to reread the page about no airlines asking for training.


Federal Aviation Administration spokesman Paul Takemoto acknowledged Thursday that flight crews have been authorized to carry firearms for the past 20 years.

"That will change on November 14," he said. "The new rule will not include authorization (to carry firearms) and crew members will no longer be allowed to carry arms."

Federal Aviation Regulation 108.11 currently allows armed individuals on aircraft, "if the person having the weapon is authorized to have the weapon by the (airline) and the Administrator (of the FAA) and has successfully completed a course of training in the use of firearms acceptable to the Administrator."




Takemoto ""was not aware of whether or not the FAA had ever approved a firearms training course for flight crews, or whether such a request had ever been made"". He indicated that the agency was too busy to research the issue in light of the on-going investigation into the hijacking of four passenger jets by terrorists armed with plastic knives and box cutters on September 11.


As stated he was not aware, thats different then no airlines had ever requested.

[edit on 7-4-2007 by ULTIMA1]



posted on Apr, 8 2007 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by LeftBehind
So what is your counter theory?
[edit on 5-4-2007 by LeftBehind]


Weel not sure but it is also strange that out of 4 planes not 1 person got off an emergency call or an emergency signal. Other hijaked aircraft have gotten off a call or signal.


Hi LeftBehind, I'm confused as to what you're talking about; the report said that there were 2 phone calls from flight attendants.

It is true that pilots are not to give up control of the airplane, but the main consideration is that NO ONE gets killed. I'm sure the hijackers would have threatened to kill the passengers.If there's no other options, than giving up control is preferable to having people killed.
I was a flight attendant for 6 years and i'm a third generation commercial airlines brat. I've known an awful lot of pilots and yes, some were pretty scummy, as in any group, but even the scummy ones would do everything they could do protect the passengers. Most have been in the military and they understand that it's important to remain calm and cool and to respond very quickly. More than one pilot's good name has been destroyed because the airline didn't want to take responsiblity.
I think these pilots did everything they could to protect the passengers and crew.



posted on Apr, 8 2007 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Ultima, have you ever been in the cockpit of a commercial airliner? As soon as the intruder enters he can reach right over and slit your throat, shoot you or otherwise impair your moves. There wouldn't have been time for the pilot to unhook his seatbelt, stand up, turn around and then...what? He had no gun or other weapon.
I agree with Zaphod, fighthing in the cockpit would have been the worst thing to do. Ultima, don't you think the pilots were smart enough to make the best decision they could, based on their experience and knowledge?
I mean, don't you think they wanted to live, as well, why would they endanger thier own lives?
Zaphod, are you a commercial airline pilot? Just wondering, you sound like one.



posted on Apr, 8 2007 @ 06:21 PM
link   
You guys are making it sound like its just the hijackers at the cockpit door. Do you honestly think with all that commotion that everyone else would just be watching??

Then forestlady says



As soon as the intruder enters he can reach right over and slit your throat,



I'm sorry but once your in the reached over position it is YOU who are vulnerable.

Just to add something to the original point that Ultima brought up.

If there was a warning to secure the cockpit door, don't you think the passengers would be watched very carefully and told to be remain seated unless they have to use the washroom?

I would think there would be people at the front of the plane watching the movements of the passengers very carefully.






[edit on 8-4-2007 by talisman]



posted on Apr, 8 2007 @ 10:47 PM
link   
Have you been in the cockpit of a plane talisman? Ever? You say you'd be in the vulnerable position reaching over, but as soon as you're in the cockpit you're just about in a position to reach around and cut the pilots throat almost before he even realizes you're in there. It would be a matter of a second or two to actually cut his throat, and then there wouldn't be much he could do afterwards.

Prior to 9/11 passengers almost NEVER fought back against hijackers. They were too scared about getting killed.

As for watching the passengers, IF THERE WAS TIME then they would, yes. However, we're talking a matter of minutes here. They got the warning, they asked for confirmation, and not long after that the takeover occurred. There wasn't time to get the warning confirmed, call the flight attendants to the cockpit, brief them, and tell the passengers to stay seated. Even if they HAD, in a serious attempt to take over the plane, the crew was NOT trained in self defense in most cases. Why do you think that hijackings through the years were almost always successful(the takeover of the plane anyway)? The crews didn't try and weren't trained to stop them.

Forestlady, I grew up around planes of all kinds, and worked for 8 years with the FAA and airlines.

[edit on 4/8/2007 by Zaphod58]




top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join