Passengers Report Stolen SeaTac Plane, Grounded Flights

Status
Not open for further replies.
weilke said:
Not for a suicidal non-pilot flying a plane. They have managed to talk down
- the owner of a King Air whose contract pilot died in the left seat. All his experience was soloing a 172 30 years earlier.
- the wife of a King Air pilot after he became disabled due to medical reasons.

Dunno, maybe it's the KA that is just so easy to fly.
Click to expand...

Another one in UK, zero flight training, landed the plane at night, from the right seat, no panel lights and a dead friend in the left seat. At one point he even stalled and recovered.
 
LoLPilot said:
What's your solution that would be inexpensive to implement and would not add a delay to a system that already times itself in seconds?

Also, the whole thing about military vehicles...?
Click to expand...

I think I need to clarify things first. I am not suggesting that we go out and lock up all the airliners. I sincerely hope this all blows over and takes it for what it was, an one off event where everyone got relatively lucky, not likely to happen again and we carry on as we were. That is my hope and desire. However I think that's not likely in the wake of 9/11 where we have witnessed the power of aircraft used as a weapon. The general public is not very worried about stolen tanks, or trucks from army bases. Historically they haven't been much of an issue.

My original point was, that instead of going down the path of new regulations, new layers of security checks, more fences and gates, more onerous tests and evaluations on airport personnel and more hired security people, perhaps we should just lock the door to the plane and take the keys. Simple and in all probability would have prevented this tragedy. I believe that whatever minor challenges to airline operations by having to keep track of keys, or have back up keys, is trivial compared to whatever the TSA and other government bodies with the help of politicians would come up with.
 
Only two outcomes I can see will shut the public up.

Put barriers up around the aircraft stands to physically prevent the aircraft from taxiing.

Classify all 121 aircraft manuals.

Is it sensible? Heck no! But the public doesn't care if our industry is beat out of existence.
 
Dav8or said:
I think I need to clarify things first. I am not suggesting that we go out and lock up all the airliners. I sincerely hope this all blows over and takes it for what it was, an one off event where everyone got relatively lucky, not likely to happen again and we carry on as we were. That is my hope and desire. However I think that's not likely in the wake of 9/11 where we have witnessed the power of aircraft used as a weapon. The general public is not very worried about stolen tanks, or trucks from army bases. Historically they haven't been much of an issue.

My original point was, that instead of going down the path of new regulations, new layers of security checks, more fences and gates, more onerous tests and evaluations on airport personnel and more hired security people, perhaps we should just lock the door to the plane and take the keys. Simple and in all probability would have prevented this tragedy. I believe that whatever minor challenges to airline operations by having to keep track of keys, or have back up keys, is trivial compared to whatever the TSA and other government bodies with the help of politicians would come up with.
Click to expand...

Historically planes used as weapons haven't been an issue either. That happened ONCE. Tanks have been stolen more than once. A man built a weaponized bulldozer and destroyed part of a town before committing suicide. Fortunately people were sensible enough not to demand background checks for bulldozers. What happened last night was not an attack. It is a tragedy because someone felt the need to end their life and they had people that cared about them, but don't make it out to be more than it was. This was the realistic equivalent of someone stealing a sports car from a parking lot and getting it up to 150 on a backroad before driving it off a cliff. It was just more expensive. I don't buy the "yeah but he COULD HAVE..." argument. It's spurious. He DIDN'T. Blame rests squarely on his shoulders, not on the shoulders of the aviation industry, not on Horizon, not on Bambardier, not on airport security, and certainly not on simulators and aviation geeks. The system didn't fail. There aren't gaping holes in security. That's why I posted the Time article. "Maniac Blows Up School" was the headline of the worst US school attack in history. And that's what he was - a maniac. Someone off his rocker. Just like here. There is an X factor that's always present and statistically you can't stop it. Law of diminishing returns states that the closer you get the more costly it becomes to try.

If we want to play the hypothetical game, okay let's say we key commercial aircraft. Who holds the keys? What happens if one of them flips? At some point in time you let all of the hypothetically awful scenarios play out you get a launch code type scenario where we say "okay so to start this regional turboprop we have to have the captain and first officer both turn their ignition keys at the same time while the captain inputs a PIN on a keypad."
 
LongRoadBob said:
Sure, that's the same thing as a one time incident....

Average of eight kids shot by unsecured firearms daily...
Click to expand...

Source on that? There are very few actual children under the age of 15 injured by firearms accidents each year. That number, 8, may include gang members shooting each other with firearms they had no intention of using legally. So good to check the actual source if this sort of thing.
 
LoLPilot said:
Historically planes used as weapons haven't been an issue either. That happened ONCE. Tanks have been stolen more than once. A man built a weaponized bulldozer and destroyed part of a town before committing suicide. Fortunately people were sensible enough not to demand background checks for bulldozers. What happened last night was not an attack. It is a tragedy because someone felt the need to end their life and they had people that cared about them, but don't make it out to be more than it was. This was the realistic equivalent of someone stealing a sports car from a parking lot and getting it up to 150 on a backroad before driving it off a cliff. It was just more expensive. I don't buy the "yeah but he COULD HAVE..." argument. It's spurious. He DIDN'T. Blame rests squarely on his shoulders, not on the shoulders of the aviation industry, not on Horizon, not on Bambardier, not on airport security, and certainly not on simulators and aviation geeks. The system didn't fail. There aren't gaping holes in security. That's why I posted the Time article. "Maniac Blows Up School" was the headline of the worst US school attack in history. And that's what he was - a maniac. Someone off his rocker. Just like here. There is an X factor that's always present and statistically you can't stop it. Law of diminishing returns states that the closer you get the more costly it becomes to try.

If we want to play the hypothetical game, okay let's say we key commercial aircraft. Who holds the keys? What happens if one of them flips? At some point in time you let all of the hypothetically awful scenarios play out you get a launch code type scenario where we say "okay so to start this regional turboprop we have to have the captain and first officer both turn their ignition keys at the same time while the captain inputs a PIN on a keypad."
Click to expand...

OK... if that's how you see it. I think you are living in an alternative universe and not the USA. It did happen. It is worse than a guy stealing a sports car and killing himself with it. It si worse than a tank, or bulldozer. It is all about what could have happened in my reality. Instead of shaking your fist and ranting at the TV, listen to what people are saying. It matters not that 9/11 only happened once. People presume it will happen again and this latest event strengthens that argument, not diminish it.

Yep, this guy was solely responsible. Just like the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were solely responsible along with Osama Bin Laden that day. What's your point? The motivation may be different, but the destruction is not. The Bombardier is small compared to a Boeing, but it could have easily killed 100 people or more. Those F-15s were worthless. They came from Oregon. Had this been a terrorist, they could have easily done the deed before they got there.
 
Dav8or said:
OK... if that's how you see it. I think you are living in an alternative universe and not the USA. It did happen. It is worse than a guy stealing a sports car and killing himself with it. It si worse than a tank, or bulldozer. It is all about what could have happened in my reality. Instead of shaking your fist and ranting at the TV, listen to what people are saying. It matters not that 9/11 only happened once. People presume it will happen again and this latest event strengthens that argument, not diminish it.

Yep, this guy was solely responsible. Just like the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were solely responsible along with Osama Bin Laden that day. What's your point? The motivation may be different, but the destruction is not. The Bombardier is small compared to a Boeing, but it could have easily killed 100 people or more. Those F-15s were worthless. They came from Oregon. Had this been a terrorist, they could have easily done the deed before they got there.
Click to expand...

Then you've succumbed to fear mongering. It's not worse than a tank, a bulldozer, or a sports car. He stole an aircraft, did some stunts, and then killed himself with it. It could have killed people. It didn't. In the US you have a tiny probability of being killed by a terrorist attack. You're more likely to die on a bicycle, choking on food, falling down stairs, etc. Yet I have a feeling that none of those things will faze you if you take the stairs, eat, and ride your bicycle. Scale things for population, look at data, and don't simply rely on shock value. That. Is the real world.
 
I think he agrees, but is saying what we think doesn’t matter, it’s what the masses think that matters. At least I think that’s what he means.
 
Mike Smith said:
I think he agrees, but is saying what we think doesn’t matter, it’s what the masses think that matters. At least I think that’s what he means.
Click to expand...
You're probably right. And yet, anyone with a credit card can still rent a Ryder truck, order 55 gallon drums of nitrogen right over the internet and buy as much diesel as you've got vessels to put it in no questions asked.
 
The closest base with fighter jets to Seattle is Whidby Island NAS. If a terrorist took off from SEA with the intent to smack it into downtown Seattle, it’s unlikely they would have gotten there much faster. As it was, time from launch to intercept was only eight minutes.
 
Mike Smith said:
I think he agrees, but is saying what we think doesn’t matter, it’s what the masses think that matters. At least I think that’s what he means.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's what I mean and in this case, should the general public get all agitated and demand something be done, ignition switches and door locks would be the simplest and least invasive action that we could do to placate the public and their fears.
 
Half Fast said:
There are many examples, but you asked for one so that’s what I’ll give. The Las Vegas shooter who used a bump stock has now given us a bump stock ban, at least in my state.
Click to expand...

Bump stocks. Aren't they mods to guns,adapters, that make a non automatic or semi, into more of an automatic? Isn't the result of using one, less accuracy, essentially spraying bullets but much more quickly but with much less ability to control where they shoot?

Personally I think it should not have taken even one instance to ban those, they ought to have been banned from the got go.

The are a lot of stupid laws though. In many states it is allowed to carry a gun, but not a knife, or nunchucks, or staffs, or wooden swords, martial arts weapons. I think that may have been because of either movies or single incidents.

I agree with you, making laws over one instance is very bad, and the way laws are written nowadays they are so filled with holes, up for interpretation, that it's almost like a trap where they can enforce at will, when it fits someone's agenda. You can't codify all of life, that is why we have judges, courts.
 
Dav8or said:
I think I need to clarify things first. I am not suggesting that we go out and lock up all the airliners. I sincerely hope this all blows over and takes it for what it was, an one off event where everyone got relatively lucky, not likely to happen again and we carry on as we were. That is my hope and desire. However I think that's not likely in the wake of 9/11 where we have witnessed the power of aircraft used as a weapon. The general public is not very worried about stolen tanks, or trucks from army bases. Historically they haven't been much of an issue.

My original point was, that instead of going down the path of new regulations, new layers of security checks, more fences and gates, more onerous tests and evaluations on airport personnel and more hired security people, perhaps we should just lock the door to the plane and take the keys. Simple and in all probability would have prevented this tragedy. I believe that whatever minor challenges to airline operations by having to keep track of keys, or have back up keys, is trivial compared to whatever the TSA and other government bodies with the help of politicians would come up with.
Click to expand...

How about a coded keypad? 4, 5, or six digit code to enable starting?
Three tries and it locks out and one needs a master code to enable it again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top