|
Your continuous donations keep RPGWatch running!
RPGWatch Forums » General Forums » Politics & Religion » america's worst disaster in recent history

View Poll Results - america's worst disaster in recent history

september 11 13 50.00%
hurricane katrina 8 30.77%
what disasters? my computer is working fine 5 19.23%
Voters: 26. You may not vote on this poll

Default america's worst disaster in recent history

April 5th, 2007, 22:10
unless pilots are replaced by robots programmed to not open the door i seriously doubt that a pilot would allow the crew and passengers to be slaughter for the safety of the plane and its hijacked destination. i have no idea how many planes have been hijacked but i'm not aware of too many that were ever used weapons and i doubt a rational pilot would assume as much. a pilots duty is to protect the plane, crew, and passengers. if the plane itself becomes a threat it is up to the government to 'take it from there'. personaly i would rather have defensive measures taken on the plane itself rather than some of the current parades. would people get upset if they had the cabins rigged with knock out gas so at the mere sight of a weapon it could be released, and everyone gets a free plane ticket, and the offenders change their names to sally.
curious is offline

curious

curious's Avatar
liberty or license

#81

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: California
Posts: 1,386

Default 

April 5th, 2007, 22:38
curious wrote:
would people get upset if they had the cabins rigged with knock out gas so at the mere sight of a weapon it could be released, and everyone gets a free plane ticket, and the offenders change their names to sally.
Great idea, except…I'm sure the legal profession would find that this violated hijacker's civil rights. And can you imagine what would happen if it were a false alarm and somebody bumped their head —— whiplash!!!

On second thought, most of the airlines are so close to bankruptcy that it probably wouldn't be worth anyone's while to sue.

Where there's smoke, there's mirrors.
magerette is offline

magerette

magerette's Avatar
Hedgewitch
RPGWatch Team

#82

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,929

Default 

April 5th, 2007, 23:58
granted if someone got hurt there could be legal trouble, but i would much rather know that hijackers would be less likely to succeed. and if people don't have there seatbelts on then sucks to be them. but overall and even if it happened as a false alarm it would give people a story to tell their grandkids and coworkers, which everyone can always use more of. i also thought about a robot attack dog( or other hearty animal) , but that might have more complications
curious is offline

curious

curious's Avatar
liberty or license

#83

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: California
Posts: 1,386

Default 

April 7th, 2007, 07:15
Originally Posted by curious View Post
unless pilots are replaced by robots programmed to not open the door i seriously doubt that a pilot would allow the crew and passengers to be slaughter for the safety of the plane and its hijacked destination. i have no idea how many planes have been hijacked but i'm not aware of too many that were ever used weapons and i doubt a rational pilot would assume as much. a pilots duty is to protect the plane, crew, and passengers.
The point is if airlines followed what the security experts have been saying is there would be no door to open!! Pilots would never know anything was wrong in the passenger compartment, that is why they are completely isolated. A pilot CANNOT do anything to resolve a hijacking situation. If hijackers know they cannot alter the destination of a plane then they will not attempt to hijack it, of course it can still be used for a terrorism act but that is completely different than the plane being hijacked.

A pilots duty is to fly the plane, not protect anyone other than to perform due care while flying. If it was their duty to protect anyone they would receive training as such.

Favourite RPGs of all time: Wizardry 6, Ultima 7/7.2, Fallout2, Planescape Torment, Baldurs Gate 2+TOB, Jagged Alliance 2, Ravenloft: The stone prophet, Gothic 2, Realms of Arkania:Blade of destiny (not the HD version!!) and Secret of the Silver Blades.
bjon045 is offline

bjon045

bjon045's Avatar
Keeper of the Watch

#84

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sigil
Posts: 952

Default 

April 7th, 2007, 09:57
since the dawn of transportation it has been the duty of the pilot/captain/whatever to protect the crew/passengers/cargo. if the the person at top is not responsilbe then who the hell is. saying the captain is not responsible is like saying the president isn't responsible for the safety of the citizens in their country. does he need to be steven segal? no. what he/she needs to be is always knowledgable and certainly not ignorant to any situation that arrises. why on earth would anyone travel on a plane, bus, or train if they new their lives meant nothing the instant that a terroism threat arose. that is bloody terroism!
curious is offline

curious

curious's Avatar
liberty or license

#85

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: California
Posts: 1,386

Default 

April 7th, 2007, 19:44
Hijackings would cease to happen if they did what security experts have said, so I think your point is moot.

As for saying a captain is responsible for the safety of passengers outside the scope of his duties (to fly the plane) that is absolutely ridiculous. This is not the Age of pirates where the captain was expected to go down with the ship and fight on deck with his men, this is an age where the captain is responsible for getting people from point A to point B and that is all.

Under current US aviation legislation I believe Air Marshall's outrank the Pilots if an act of terrorism or a hijacking occurs (in US airspace at least).

Pilots are not trained to negotiate with terrorists, they are not trained to fight terrorists, if they actually tried to do something they would probably make the situation worse not better.

Comparing a pilot to the president isn't really very accurate, how about a bus driver? Not all bus drivers are like Sandra Bullock in Speed.

Favourite RPGs of all time: Wizardry 6, Ultima 7/7.2, Fallout2, Planescape Torment, Baldurs Gate 2+TOB, Jagged Alliance 2, Ravenloft: The stone prophet, Gothic 2, Realms of Arkania:Blade of destiny (not the HD version!!) and Secret of the Silver Blades.
bjon045 is offline

bjon045

bjon045's Avatar
Keeper of the Watch

#86

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sigil
Posts: 952

Default 

April 8th, 2007, 01:38
I wish all bus drivers at least looked like Sandra Bullock!!

If God said it, then that settles it!!

Editor@RPGWatch
Corwin is offline

Corwin

Corwin's Avatar
On The Razorblade of Life
RPGWatch Team

#87

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 10,475
Send a message via Skype™ to Corwin

Default 

April 8th, 2007, 20:22
Originally Posted by Sir Markus View Post
Why should it be? He's the only one with enough stones to face fundamentalist islam, oh and I'm sorry, but violence is the only language these folks understand. So if we're going to get our point across, violence is going to be a necessary evil.
The democrats want to run away like little girls and not face some DAMNED serious issues.
What have Bush done against fundamentalist Islam so far?
JemyM is offline

JemyM

JemyM's Avatar
Okay, now roll sanity.

#88

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,028
Send a message via ICQ to JemyM Send a message via MSN to JemyM

Default 

April 9th, 2007, 13:02
Originally Posted by bjon045 View Post
The point is if airlines followed what the security experts have been saying is there would be no door to open!! Pilots would never know anything was wrong in the passenger compartment, that is why they are completely isolated. A pilot CANNOT do anything to resolve a hijacking situation. If hijackers know they cannot alter the destination of a plane then they will not attempt to hijack it, of course it can still be used for a terrorism act but that is completely different than the plane being hijacked.

A pilots duty is to fly the plane, not protect anyone other than to perform due care while flying. If it was their duty to protect anyone they would receive training as such.
The problem with experts is that they often create causal relationships that work out very well in theory, but prove erroneous in real situations. And there are other aspects to consider in what you mentioned above - for example the moral aspect.
I think that such a plan - to completly isolate the pilots from the passengers -would never work out. Just imagine there would be an emergency in the passenger compartment of an airplane, e.g. a person with a heart attack. There are many situations in which the pilots just have to know what's going on, since they might be forced to land on another airport. An in these cases a one-way communication might just prove fatal. Honestly, I'm not quite sure what kind of experts came up with such a plan, but to me it sounds like something from a cheap action movie.
I also think that from a moral point of view something like that would never work out - just imagine something would happen in the passenger compartment. Indirectly the pilots would always be responsible since they are the highest authorities in an airplane… that's just a fact. Imagine if criminals would hijack a plane and threaten to kill every single passenger if the pilot does not change course.

The problem with causal relationships like "criminals won't try to hijack a plane because they cannot alter the destination of the plane" doesn't really work because it's based on logic, but acts of crime and violence are prodominantly based on emotion which overrules logic. There are very few ciriminals who take into account that their plan could go wrong and that they might be caught.
Logic does very seldom apply for "normal" criminals and it certainly does not apply for fanatics or fundamentalists, and I would think that most airplane hijackings are politically motivated crimes.

I'm also not quite sure why not being able to change the destination should criminals from hijacking a plane… after all at some point of other there will be a contact with the outside world. At the latest when the plane has landed the hijackers would be able to communicate their demands. And then they would probably ask for the plane being fueled and a pilot who will fly them to their desired destination. So I don't see the big advantage in separating the pilots from the passengers…
Ionstormsucks is offline

Ionstormsucks

Ionstormsucks's Avatar
Major Villain

#89

Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 760

Default 

April 9th, 2007, 20:28
Originally Posted by Ionstormsucks View Post
I also think that from a moral point of view something like that would never work out - just imagine something would happen in the passenger compartment. Indirectly the pilots would always be responsible since they are the highest authorities in an airplane… that's just a fact. Imagine if criminals would hijack a plane and threaten to kill every single passenger if the pilot does not change course.
There isn't a moral dilemma as you have a cabin manager who relays the request to the command center which then gives the pilots new orders.

Originally Posted by Ionstormsucks View Post
The problem with causal relationships like "criminals won't try to hijack a plane because they cannot alter the destination of the plane" doesn't really work because it's based on logic, but acts of crime and violence are prodominantly based on emotion which overrules logic.
I'm am not sure I agree with this. Maybe hijacking a bus might work that way, but hijacking a decent size plane takes planning and the hijackers will have a clear plan most of the time, i.e. in africa they normally get the pilot to fly them to a safe country, or in the middle east they might plan to land the plane at a friendly airbase and take the passengers hostage. If they know this cannot happen they will plan something else (i.e. hijacking a smaller plane or perhaps a bus - hopefully not driven by Sandra Bullock).

Originally Posted by Ionstormsucks View Post
I'm also not quite sure why not being able to change the destination should criminals from hijacking a plane… after all at some point of other there will be a contact with the outside world. At the latest when the plane has landed the hijackers would be able to communicate their demands. And then they would probably ask for the plane being fueled and a pilot who will fly them to their desired destination. So I don't see the big advantage in separating the pilots from the passengers…
That might be the case in an african airport but somehow I can't imagine that happening at JFK or heathrow where they would have an elite military force ready to take out the hijackers. (this might be wishful thinking on my behalf)

Eitherway the situation is a thousand times better than it currently is, where ANYBODY can easily gain access to the pilots, kill them, and then fly the plan straight into a building or the ground.

Favourite RPGs of all time: Wizardry 6, Ultima 7/7.2, Fallout2, Planescape Torment, Baldurs Gate 2+TOB, Jagged Alliance 2, Ravenloft: The stone prophet, Gothic 2, Realms of Arkania:Blade of destiny (not the HD version!!) and Secret of the Silver Blades.
bjon045 is offline

bjon045

bjon045's Avatar
Keeper of the Watch

#90

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sigil
Posts: 952

Default 

April 9th, 2007, 22:09
i know since 2001 but possibily before every plane i have flown on has had a locked cockpit. i wouldn't step within five feet of one either unless i have a deathwish.
curious is offline

curious

curious's Avatar
liberty or license

#91

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: California
Posts: 1,386

Default 

April 10th, 2007, 07:21
Originally Posted by curious View Post
i know since 2001 but possibily before every plane i have flown on has had a locked cockpit. i wouldn't step within five feet of one either unless i have a deathwish.
If you have a child there is a pretty good chance they will let you and your kid up into the cockpit to meet the pilot and have a look at the controls. I've been up there twice, this wasn't on an american plane, I imagine it wouldn't be that easy there.

Favourite RPGs of all time: Wizardry 6, Ultima 7/7.2, Fallout2, Planescape Torment, Baldurs Gate 2+TOB, Jagged Alliance 2, Ravenloft: The stone prophet, Gothic 2, Realms of Arkania:Blade of destiny (not the HD version!!) and Secret of the Silver Blades.
bjon045 is offline

bjon045

bjon045's Avatar
Keeper of the Watch

#92

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sigil
Posts: 952

Default 

April 10th, 2007, 15:08
Originally Posted by bjon045 View Post
There isn't a moral dilemma as you have a cabin manager who relays the request to the command center which then gives the pilots new orders.
Well, but this would again mean that there actually IS a link (although indirect) to the passenger compartment. Hijackers could just talk to the command center and therefore indirectly to the pilots… I don't see much of an improvement here - at least not when it comes to hijacking in the sense of kidnapping passengers and taking them hostage.
I therefore would argue that there is a moral aspect because at some point someone has to take responsibility - and it doesn't matter if it's the pilot or the guy in the command center.

The model you're proposing does only work if there is no way of communication between the passenger compartment and the "outside" world… and this kind of model seems a bit too artificial to me.
I'm am not sure I agree with this. Maybe hijacking a bus might work that way, but hijacking a decent size plane takes planning and the hijackers will have a clear plan most of the time, i.e. in africa they normally get the pilot to fly them to a safe country, or in the middle east they might plan to land the plane at a friendly airbase and take the passengers hostage. If they know this cannot happen they will plan something else (i.e. hijacking a smaller plane or perhaps a bus - hopefully not driven by Sandra Bullock).
When I was taking about emotions about this context I didn't mean to imply that plane hijacking is a spontanous act. Let me give you an example: The chances that you get away with a capital crime like murder, kidnapping, hijacking, etc. are relatively low. Most western governments will not negotiate with terrorists, especially not if their demands are nonmonetary (e.g. release of prisoners, etc.). And although everyone knows that, there still is murder, there still is kidnapping, hijacking, and terrorism. Criminals and terrorists do just not take into account that their plan could fail. Take capital punishment for example. Why would anyone ever commit a murder in a state where there capital punishment? But if you look at these states you'll see that there still is muder… all because emotions overrule reason.

If you look at the world today then you have to acknowledge that there are very few safe havens left for hijackers. Almost no country in the world can afford to engage into a conflict with the US or Europe over a few kidnapped tourists. I know it still happens, but such kidnappings are of a rather harmless nature since it's mostly about money - in most cases the hostages go free after several painful weeks or months.

That might be the case in an african airport but somehow I can't imagine that happening at JFK or heathrow where they would have an elite military force ready to take out the hijackers. (this might be wishful thinking on my behalf)
I guess you're right there. Since the late 70's most countries in Europe have such special forces. But these are really the last option - if all else fails it's their turn. I would think that most governments will go the way of de-escalation first.

Eitherway the situation is a thousand times better than it currently is, where ANYBODY can easily gain access to the pilots, kill them, and then fly the plan straight into a building or the ground.
Now, we're talking about terrorism - I think that's a somewhat different situation. There are no demands involved. Terrorists just use an airplane as a weapon. I think that the whole discussion about using planes as weapons is totally exaggerated. The media really presents this as some new way of terrorism and politics give in to that crap.
You cannot fight terrorism by just improving the safety measures on one very specific field. Because then terrorists will just go over to another tactic. Instead on flying planes into towers they'll go back to bombing trains or whatever. Acts of terrorism have to be stopped when they are still in the phase of planning - that is the duty of secret agencies… unfortunately for the US almost all western agencies (not only the American ones) made a pretty shabby job when it comes to 9/11.
Ionstormsucks is offline

Ionstormsucks

Ionstormsucks's Avatar
Major Villain

#93

Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 760

Default 

April 10th, 2007, 15:18
Originally Posted by Ionstormsucks View Post
Acts of terrorism have to be stopped when they are still in the phase of planning - that is the duty of secret agencies… unfortunately for the US almost all western agencies (not only the American ones) made a pretty shabby job when it comes to 9/11.
I agree. I think the mere fact that 9/11 was a purposeful act done by men rather then an act of nature is what makes it worse for all of us.

Bart and Corwin should just admit that when it gets down to it, I will have the final say.
Cm is offline

Cm

Cm's Avatar
Sentinel of Light

#94

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Missouri USA
Posts: 2,106
Send a message via Skype™ to Cm

Default 

April 10th, 2007, 17:06
Originally Posted by Cm View Post
I agree. I think the mere fact that 9/11 was a purposeful act done by men rather then an act of nature is what makes it worse for all of us.
Agreed, and even worse it could have easily been avoided if they couldn't gain access to the cockpit.

Favourite RPGs of all time: Wizardry 6, Ultima 7/7.2, Fallout2, Planescape Torment, Baldurs Gate 2+TOB, Jagged Alliance 2, Ravenloft: The stone prophet, Gothic 2, Realms of Arkania:Blade of destiny (not the HD version!!) and Secret of the Silver Blades.
bjon045 is offline

bjon045

bjon045's Avatar
Keeper of the Watch

#95

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sigil
Posts: 952

Default 

May 3rd, 2007, 01:01
Originally Posted by JemyM View Post
Re-electing George W. Bush is not on the list.
I'll second that! That HAS to be the worst!

I'll never understand why people re-elected him. The Downing street letters and other evidence was out in 2004 that showed pretty conclusively that Bush had cherry picked the information used to make his case to take the US to war in Iraq and that any sane person sitting down and looking at all of the intelligence he had access to would never have made the decision to go into Iraq.

Why so many people choose to ignore this until 2006 I don't understand. I'm proud to say that I've never cast a vote for Bush.
Cleric is offline

Cleric

Cleric's Avatar
Watcher

#96

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 68

Default 

May 3rd, 2007, 01:17
Hey, neither have I!!

If God said it, then that settles it!!

Editor@RPGWatch
Corwin is offline

Corwin

Corwin's Avatar
On The Razorblade of Life
RPGWatch Team

#97

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 10,475
Send a message via Skype™ to Corwin

Default 

May 3rd, 2007, 23:17
So then, Cleric, were you part of the lynch mob that accused of Bush doing nothing about 9-11?

Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: *sigh* / / Detroit Red Wings: Took injuries to see them, but how about them youngsters!
dteowner is offline

dteowner

dteowner's Avatar
Shoegazer

#98

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 11,317

Default 

May 4th, 2007, 10:00
Nope.
Actually, I did support his decision to go into Afghanastan after Bin Laden. Shortly after that what few screws he had came lose and he decided to go after Hussein instead.
Cleric is offline

Cleric

Cleric's Avatar
Watcher

#99

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 68

Default 

May 4th, 2007, 23:18
Has anybody read George Tenet's tell-all about the CIA and WMD? I saw him on 60 Minutes last week and one thing he said really blew my mind.

If I am remembering his words correctly, he said that when he was first called to the White House after 9-11, in the aftermath of the attack, there was already an assumption that the war would be taken into Iraq. That no one ever asked the CIA or intelligence community whether there was any reason to do so…other than the likelihood that Saddam was funding of Al-Quaida.
Naturally, no mention of this was made until..what, six years after the fact?

Where there's smoke, there's mirrors.
magerette is offline

magerette

magerette's Avatar
Hedgewitch
RPGWatch Team

#100

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,929
RPGWatch Forums » General Forums » Politics & Religion » america's worst disaster in recent history
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 10:58.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch