Do these new flight restictions make sense?

[troysvihl]

A thorough search and security check of all airplanes and airports before passengers are allowed to enter and board aircraft. Curbside check-in and off-airport check-in will be discontinued. The Transportation Department can no longer allow passengers to check in for their flights at hotels or other venues. Passengers must check in at the airports. Boarding areas will be reserved for passengers only. Only ticketed passengers will be allowed to proceed past airport screeners to catch their flights. In order to pass a security checkpoint and allowed to proceed to the gate, travelers must hold one of the following documents indicating a flight departure for the current date: a boarding pass or paper ticket, receipt for an electronic ticket (e-ticket), or an itinerary generated by an airline or travel agency, such as Orbitz, that confirms an e-ticket. Vehicles near airport terminals will be monitored more closely.

Knives of any kind will no longer be allowed in airports. So if you stop at Chilies, don't bother ordering the steak because you won't get a knife to cut it.

I guess a few of these restictions do, but I'm not sure how most of them would have stopped these terrorists. (except for the knife one, but if you've ever watched one of those prison documenaries, you'd know that a knife can be easily fashioned out of pretty much anything)

IMHO, I think all they really needed to do in addition to the security checks they already had in playce is to either:

1. install some sort of bullet proof barriers between the pilots and the rest of the plane so that the pilots can seal themselves off. (Why do they use those flimsy doors anyway? Is there some reason that I'm not aware of?)
2. station an armed guard on every flight. (Like Isreal does)
3. arm the pilots. (If anyone is qualified to carry a gun, I'd think the pilots would be. Would be a lot cheaper than a seperate guard on every plane too.)

Any of these would be less costly and more effective against highjackings, IMHO.

[WJWheels]

I agree 100% Troysvihl.. If a "strong" locked barrier was between the cockpit and the cabin, the pilots armed, and with orders to land at the nearest airport in case of hijack/terrorist activity, then violence or threats of same to the flight attendants or passengers wouldn't even take place. The terrorists would know better than anyone that it would serve them no good.

[HAL9000]

I've wondered that for years. Why could the plane not be designed with separate compartments for passenger/pilot?

[Toaster]

Hello folks,
There is a way. A modification of the aircraft as follows would greatly help:

1. Redesign the aircraft so that there is no "flight deck to passenger access".
In this, the flight crew would only be able to access the aircraft from the outside of the aircraft.

2.Arrainge an "auto pilot" where the aircraft can be flown via ground direction should the flight crew become incapacitated for whatever reason.
In this, the aircraft is "flown by wire" via ground control and cannot be overridden without several means of identification *and* direct contact with ground control.

3. Train the in cabin personell (flight attendants) on "how" to identify possible trouble areas and report them to the flight crew. Another possibility would be a "knockout" gas to imobilize all in the cabin and land the aircraft at the first available runway.

(suggestion 2 would be a panic button affair)

The flight crew would be sealed within a self contained area in which all the normal needs are met which includes a small opening to exchange documents and the like that can be sealed or even purged on command. This opening would not be directly into the flight deck but rather a small area that is transferred to the flight deck after visual inspection by the flight crew.


In the ways above, the flight crew would be powerless and incapable of entering the cabin for whatever reasons.