Life of a pilot
I went to bed at 4 AM the day before because I needed to get on the internet to schedule the aircraft and instructor at 12:01 CDT (5:01 Zulu). Joy! And there is the obligatory Futurama and Family Guy to be watched. Paying for it now at 8 AM in the morning when the lovely alarm clock goes off, just so I can haul my ass out to the airport by 9 AM and help a friend (in for the week) get this instrument back up to date (a multi-hour chore), followed by lunch with said friend and then a lesson for myself (there's always something more to earn)...
Friend calls at 8:30, plane is leaking oil... And it's not the typical small oil leak, it's massive oil leak :( Also, routine maintence hasn't been done. I am now up at 8:30; cold, wet, hungry and bored. I live in MN and cold is normal. Wet isn't helping out the cold issue. I could use a pot of coffee, but had expected one out at the airport to supply me with the required jolt (no airport now...). The worst part of bored, because a bored pilot is someone who is about to do something illegal or stupid. Thank god the friend had some errends to do, else I would be able to blow another day watching TV, and it goes downhill after 11 AM when ER ends.
So, out to Alexandria MN, the two hour tour with a broken radio... Luckily, Jimbo hadn't seen me since christmas so there was enough to fill the two hour gap. Follow it up with lunch, window shopping for electronics, some gaming, and a little TV.
Now, my lesson is at 2:30, it's 1:35 now. Who should call but the CFI wondering where I was (go team!). I inform him of the time but offer to go out and get my flight in early. Spent 1.1 hours destroying the aircraft and attempting to kill myself, overall a sorid performance...
Followed up with teaching a student about weather and am now about to go write a paper, go exercise, watch some TV, and sign up for another lesson for next week. Who says this isn't the life...
5/3/05
4/26/05
More Security
The way pilots can defend an aircraft are limited in the air but can be very effective. The first, less destructive, and more deadly is lowering the cabin pressure. The second way is potentially dangerous and is only partially effective would be to maneuver the aircraft.
All modern airliner aircraft have a pressurization system. Commonly, the aircraft flies at over 25,000 ft (the only exceptions tend to be puddle jumpers [turbo props]). At these altitudes, time of useful conciousness at altitude without supplimental oxygen is measured in minutes and can go as low as seconds as aircraft go above 35,000 ft. The pressurization keeps the aircraft in the 6,000-8,000 ft range, which is comfortable for most people but is still noticeable.
The pilots have two ways to vent the atmosphere: raising the cabin altitude at a controlled rate or dumping the atmosphere. Either way, the pilots would be relatively unaffected because they are equipped with pressurized oxygen masks running off the engines or a seprate O2 bottle. Raising the cabin altitude would max out about 12,000-15,000 ft. At this level, most people are becoming euphoric, attention to detail decreases, and skill level decreases. This would slow the terrorists down. The problem is that people that are in better shape and who tend to live at higher altitudes are less affected, so there isn't a set reaction to this defense and it isn't 100% reliable. The second problem is that it will take a few minutes to begin to set in and isn't an immediate solution.
The dumping of atmosphere is a very drastic measure. It has the ability to cause perminate injury or kill passengers. Essentially, you go from 8,000ft to 25,000+ ft in a few seconds. The atmosphere in the aircraft can actually fog up and create zero visibility conditions (hindering any attackers and reducing the ability of the passengers ability to put on their masks). The temperature will drop drastically down well below freezing. Anyone with sinus or ear problems will have problems with fluids draining out of their sinus' and ear canals. Only those who are able to put the masks on very quickly when they drop will be concious in short order. Anyone with breathing problems will not survive long at these altitudes, and those even in the best of physical shape will follow them. The upper atmosphere is one of the harshest enviroments known to man and the pilots and passengers will be exposed to it in a very real way.
Maneuvering the aircraft is a non-lethal way of foiling a terrorist attack. The issue is that modern day airliners are not designed to pull multiple G or negative G maneuvers. Even a 0 G pushover can create problems with oil and fuel systems in the engines, not to mention the stress on the airframe. The idea is to stall the attackers while an outside force (either the passengers, the pressurization system, or another defensive mechanism) readies it's self to defend the pilots. In the end maneuvering is only partially effective, can only stall the attackers for a short while, and is dangerous to the aircraft. Such as it is, many pilots consider this an option due to the nature of the threat they are taught they might encounter (where surprise is key, and a delaying tactic of this type is a useful tool).
The way pilots can defend an aircraft are limited in the air but can be very effective. The first, less destructive, and more deadly is lowering the cabin pressure. The second way is potentially dangerous and is only partially effective would be to maneuver the aircraft.
All modern airliner aircraft have a pressurization system. Commonly, the aircraft flies at over 25,000 ft (the only exceptions tend to be puddle jumpers [turbo props]). At these altitudes, time of useful conciousness at altitude without supplimental oxygen is measured in minutes and can go as low as seconds as aircraft go above 35,000 ft. The pressurization keeps the aircraft in the 6,000-8,000 ft range, which is comfortable for most people but is still noticeable.
The pilots have two ways to vent the atmosphere: raising the cabin altitude at a controlled rate or dumping the atmosphere. Either way, the pilots would be relatively unaffected because they are equipped with pressurized oxygen masks running off the engines or a seprate O2 bottle. Raising the cabin altitude would max out about 12,000-15,000 ft. At this level, most people are becoming euphoric, attention to detail decreases, and skill level decreases. This would slow the terrorists down. The problem is that people that are in better shape and who tend to live at higher altitudes are less affected, so there isn't a set reaction to this defense and it isn't 100% reliable. The second problem is that it will take a few minutes to begin to set in and isn't an immediate solution.
The dumping of atmosphere is a very drastic measure. It has the ability to cause perminate injury or kill passengers. Essentially, you go from 8,000ft to 25,000+ ft in a few seconds. The atmosphere in the aircraft can actually fog up and create zero visibility conditions (hindering any attackers and reducing the ability of the passengers ability to put on their masks). The temperature will drop drastically down well below freezing. Anyone with sinus or ear problems will have problems with fluids draining out of their sinus' and ear canals. Only those who are able to put the masks on very quickly when they drop will be concious in short order. Anyone with breathing problems will not survive long at these altitudes, and those even in the best of physical shape will follow them. The upper atmosphere is one of the harshest enviroments known to man and the pilots and passengers will be exposed to it in a very real way.
Maneuvering the aircraft is a non-lethal way of foiling a terrorist attack. The issue is that modern day airliners are not designed to pull multiple G or negative G maneuvers. Even a 0 G pushover can create problems with oil and fuel systems in the engines, not to mention the stress on the airframe. The idea is to stall the attackers while an outside force (either the passengers, the pressurization system, or another defensive mechanism) readies it's self to defend the pilots. In the end maneuvering is only partially effective, can only stall the attackers for a short while, and is dangerous to the aircraft. Such as it is, many pilots consider this an option due to the nature of the threat they are taught they might encounter (where surprise is key, and a delaying tactic of this type is a useful tool).
2/7/05
Aviation Security and the joke it really is. I bet that 90% of the flying public would be shocked to know how bad aviation security is. Airlines can screen for bombs (it's been done since the 80's) but screening passengers is much more difficult. And in those regards, it's almost impossible untill you start giving everyone a psych evaluation.
The drawback is, in order to take over an aircraft you require alot of power. You must overcome the other passengers on board the aircraft and neutralize the pilots. Both objectives can be done independently, but attempting to do both is problematic. Pre 9/11, the pilots and passengers were not conditioned to defend themselves.
Subdueing the passengers takes a great amount of power. This power can either come from numerical superority or outside influences (weapons of some sort). While numerical superority is possible, it is infeasable due to the sheer number of passengers on board an airliner. Getting 50 or greater terrorists on board a US airliner without any flags being raised would be quite a feat.
This leaves weapons, which is a possibility. While Secure Identification Display Area (SIDA) zones are in theory secure places, it isn't always the case. Weapons can be smuggled in by trusted employees or taken out of checked baggage (you are allowed to check firearms). This would require getting a terrorist inside the SIDA or hiring someone to do it for you. Also, once inside the SIDA, airline travel allows you to stay within the SIDA zone, and thus a breach anywhere in the US would allow you to smuggle these weapons anywhere.
I will go into the pilots later on.
The drawback is, in order to take over an aircraft you require alot of power. You must overcome the other passengers on board the aircraft and neutralize the pilots. Both objectives can be done independently, but attempting to do both is problematic. Pre 9/11, the pilots and passengers were not conditioned to defend themselves.
Subdueing the passengers takes a great amount of power. This power can either come from numerical superority or outside influences (weapons of some sort). While numerical superority is possible, it is infeasable due to the sheer number of passengers on board an airliner. Getting 50 or greater terrorists on board a US airliner without any flags being raised would be quite a feat.
This leaves weapons, which is a possibility. While Secure Identification Display Area (SIDA) zones are in theory secure places, it isn't always the case. Weapons can be smuggled in by trusted employees or taken out of checked baggage (you are allowed to check firearms). This would require getting a terrorist inside the SIDA or hiring someone to do it for you. Also, once inside the SIDA, airline travel allows you to stay within the SIDA zone, and thus a breach anywhere in the US would allow you to smuggle these weapons anywhere.
I will go into the pilots later on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
