Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Captains to FAA:Focus on cockpits
WND | 9/18/2001 | By Paul Sperry© 2001 WorldNetDaily.com

Posted on 09/18/2001 3:39:05 PM PDT by extreme469

WASHINGTON – The Federal Aviation Administration should worry less about beefing up security at airport terminals and gates, and more about fortifying airplane cockpits to thwart hijackers, captains of two major airlines told WorldNetDaily yesterday. They argue that no matter what changes are made on the ground, terrorists will still find a way to sneak aboard commercial flights with weapons. The key, they say, is preventing them from breaking into the cockpit and taking over the flight controls once they’re aboard. Pilots urge the FAA and airlines to make the following security improvements: Replace cockpit doors and walls on all aircraft with strong panels lined with bulletproof Kevlar material; Install video cameras outside cockpit doors, and monitors inside the cockpit, so pilots can see what’s going on back in the cabin without opening the door; Take cockpit keys away from flight attendants, so hijackers can’t wrest control of them and gain entry to the cockpit; Change flight-crew training so that pilots are discouraged, even prohibited, from leaving the cockpit to resolve passenger or other problems in the back of the plane; Allow pilots to carry guns that fire rubber bullets, or a subsonic, frangible round, that would not puncture the aircraft’s outer shell during pressurized flight. Pilots interviewed by WorldNetDaily argue that they’re much more qualified than government security experts or politicians – who “have failed us,” as one American Airlines captain charged – to come up with better ideas to protect their planes and passengers. Eight American Airlines and United Airlines pilots, along with all their flight attendants and passengers, died on four separate flights Sept. 11 after anti-American Islamic terrorists forced their way into the cockpits of their Boeing 757s and 767s, took the controls and, at least in three of the flights, intentionally crashed their fuel-laden planes into the Pentagon and both World Trade Center towers. Passengers apparently foiled the plans of hijackers aboard a fourth plane, which reportedly was headed for another Washington target. It crashed in a field outside of Pittsburgh. “Why should we listen to the security experts now, after the fact, when they have failed us so badly? We’re the ones still walking point without a weapon,” fumed American Airlines Captain Scott Gibson, who flies Boeing 767s out of Miami. “When a hijacking like this takes place, all these security experts are drinking coffee and eating donuts while watching it unfold on TV. They’re not up there with the bad guys at their throats.” Fearing passenger perception of a “police state,” he and other captains adamantly oppose posting sky marshals on planes, and would rather see the FAA empower pilots. Arming them and reinforcing their cockpits would let terrorists know they’d have to win a gun battle with pilots, many of whom are ex-military, protected by a bullet-proof bunker. Cockpit doors. Jetliners are equipped with “flimsy” cockpit doors that are easy to penetrate, even when locked, pilots say. “The FAA has permitted a flimsy cockpit door which really wouldn’t keep anybody out,” said Ralph Omholt, a licensed captain who flies Boeing 757s and 767s for a major airline, the name of which he asked not to disclose. “They’ve had cockpit break-ins before by sky-ragers, so this terrorist break-in isn’t anything new.” “A large man running at full speed can break it down,” Gibson said of the door. Actually, it doesn’t even take a large man. “A woman on PCP kicked in a cockpit door not too long ago on a flight from Houston to Los Angeles,” noted Steve Elson, a former FAA airport security inspector, in an interview with WorldNetDaily. Elson’s common-sense approach to safety was not warmly received in Washington, he says, so he quit in 1999. He’s blown the whistle on what he views as the FAA’s repeated failures to effectively improve security at the nation’s airports. Elson agrees that cockpit doors should be hardened. At a minimum, he says, they should be secured by a deadbolt. Gibson wants to see the entire back wall of cockpits replaced with bulletproof paneling. Cockpit keys. In a brave stand, two stewardesses on American flight 11 out of Boston, the first plane to hit the trade center, tried to bar terrorists from entering the flight deck. But the terrorists slit their throats and apparently took the cockpit keys off them. They then opened the door and, more than likely, overcame the pilots – possibly killing them like the stewardesses – and steered the plane like a guided missile into the north tower. It was a tragic lesson, pilots say. “We should take the keys out of the flight attendants’ hands,” Gibson asserted. “The only ones who should have a key to the cockpit are the pilots. If the flight attendants want access, they should be allowed to enter only by calling the pilots on the flight interphone.” To let them in, Gibson favors an electronic door lock that pilots can buzz open from inside the cockpit. Cockpit cameras. Pilots like the idea of installing a hidden video camera in the ceiling just outside the cockpit door, and a viewing monitor inside the cockpit. That way, they can identify visitors, and keep an eye on activities just outside the flight deck, without opening the door. “We should be able to see who’s standing out there without opening the door,” Gibson said. He suggests the camera be encased in Kevlar and secured with a strong lock, so hijackers can’t remove it or shoot it out. It should also tape on a continuous loop like the cockpit voice recorder, he says. Visiting the cabin. This should be a big no-no, pilots agree. U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson, husband of United flight 77 victim Barbara Olson, says that in his two cell phone calls he received from her on the fatal flight that struck the Pentagon, he got the sense that the pilots were in the back of the plane with her. It’s not clear if the pilots were herded back there by the terrorists, possibly at knife-point, or if they left the flight deck on their own to help passengers. Either way, captains agree, pilots should be trained never to leave the cockpit -- period. That’s not the rule now. “It’s a pilot’s option, as a last resort, to go back and resolve a dispute,” Gibson said. “But I think that’s all going to change now, and we’re no longer going to be allowed to go back there.” “I think we’re just going to have to land and throw them [hijackers] off, assuming we get an impenetrable door,” he added. “In fact, that’s the way it should be.” What about the fate of the passengers who would be left to deal with the terrorists, on their own, back in the cabin? “If there’s somebody back there killing people – hey, you know what? – it’s better to triage 20 to 30 people in the back than 5,000 under a building,” Gibson said. “It’s a tough thing to say, but sometimes life is tough.” Elson agrees with that strategy, saying the military has a term for it – “acceptable losses.” He doesn’t think that pilots should leave the cockpit under any circumstances – even when nature calls. Another door to the lavatory could be added from the cockpit side, he suggests, to accommodate pilots’ bathroom needs. Under current rules, the cockpit door doesn’t even have to be locked all the time, which is a big mistake, Elson says. “Those cockpit doors never, never, should be left unlocked,” he said. “And as far as I’m concerned, the doors shouldn’t even be opened” during flight. “If the pilot in command hears ‘knock-knock’ on his door, and it’s Abdul who says he’s got box-cutters and is going to start cutting if he doesn’t open up, the captain should say, ‘OK, go cut some boxes, Abdul, we’re going to land,’” Elson said. Arming pilots. Pilots argue that if they can be entrusted with passengers’ lives, they can be entrusted with handling a weapon responsibly. “If you can trust me with 100,000 pounds of explosives [jet fuel] in the wings every time I take off, I think I can be trusted to handle a firearm safely as well,” said American Airlines Captain Russell T. Cowles. They also argue that, unlike sky marshals, they know the state of pressurization of their aircraft and, therefore, when and when not to fire a gun in any phase of flight. As an added precaution, Gibson proposes letting pilots carry only guns firing rubber bullets or frangible rounds that “would do minimum damage to the aircraft during a discharge in pressurized flight.” He admits, however, it would be a “huge hurdle” for the FAA to OK such a move. But the alternative of posting federal marshals on all commercial flights – something airlines once did – would be extremely costly, he argues. “What a waste of money,” Gibson said. “You’d just have some guy spending his whole career riding in an airplane eating airline food.” “He’d end up weighing 300 pounds,” he joked. “I mean, think about it. The sky marshal would be so easy to identify – he’d be the fattest guy on the airplane.” Gibson, who’s flown for American since 1987 and commercially since 1977, is against arming passengers and flight attendants – not even with stun-guns or mace. “That’s a bad idea,” he said, explaining that trained terrorists could turn such weapons against them. The key to frustrating terrorists, pilots stress, is turning the cockpit into a fortress, and pilots into armed guards. “We can have better [airport terminal] security screening and things like that,” Gibson said, “but if these guys are committed terrorists, they’re going to figure out how to get a weapon in.” Or, they’ll figure a way to fashion a weapon on the plane, Elson says – not unlike prison inmates who learn to turn just about any otherwise harmless material into a shank. “You can make a weapon better on the plane than most of that stuff [pocket knives and razors] they’re going to screen for now,” Elson said. “You can find metal that’s sharp on board.” Previous stories: Pistol-shooting parties at terrorist safe-house U.S. equipped terror sponsors Tactical nukes may be necessary Why the Pentagon was so vulnerable Terrorists slit throats of 2 AA stewardesses Flight 11 had mechanical delays last week Lobsters, not explosives, on American jet Pentagon suspects Osama bin Laden


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-35 next last
What insight from the guys right on the front lines! Let's hope the FAA puts these ideas into effect soon!
1 posted on 09/18/2001 3:39:05 PM PDT by extreme469
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: extreme469
I support the airlines paying an armed Marshall or Fed aboard each flight. The pilots and flight crew have enough to do and worry about. I never get my Pepsi refills, theyre so busy!
2 posted on 09/18/2001 3:46:05 PM PDT by Righter-than-Rush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: extreme469
Paragraph breaks are our friend.


The Federal Aviation Administration should worry less about beefing up security at airport terminals and gates, and more about fortifying airplane cockpits to thwart hijackers, captains of two major airlines told WorldNetDaily yesterday.

They argue that no matter what changes are made on the ground, terrorists will still find a way to sneak aboard commercial flights with weapons. The key, they say, is preventing them from breaking into the cockpit and taking over the flight controls once they’re aboard.

Pilots urge the FAA and airlines to make the following security improvements:

Replace cockpit doors and walls on all aircraft with strong panels lined with bulletproof Kevlar material;

Install video cameras outside cockpit doors, and monitors inside the cockpit, so pilots can see what’s going on back in the cabin without opening the door;

Take cockpit keys away from flight attendants, so hijackers can’t wrest control of them and gain entry to the cockpit;

Change flight-crew training so that pilots are discouraged, even prohibited, from leaving the cockpit to resolve passenger or other problems in the back of the plane;

Allow pilots to carry guns that fire rubber bullets, or a subsonic, frangible round, that would not puncture the aircraft’s outer shell during pressurized flight. Pilots interviewed by WorldNetDaily argue that they’re much more qualified than government security experts or politicians – who “have failed us,” as one American Airlines captain charged – to come up with better ideas to protect their planes and passengers.

Eight American Airlines and United Airlines pilots, along with all their flight attendants and passengers, died on four separate flights Sept. 11 after anti-American Islamic terrorists forced their way into the cockpits of their Boeing 757s and 767s, took the controls and, at least in three of the flights, intentionally crashed their fuel-laden planes into the Pentagon and both World Trade Center towers. Passengers apparently foiled the plans of hijackers aboard a fourth plane, which reportedly was headed for another Washington target. It crashed in a field outside of Pittsburgh.

“Why should we listen to the security experts now, after the fact, when they have failed us so badly? We’re the ones still walking point without a weapon,” fumed American Airlines Captain Scott Gibson, who flies Boeing 767s out of Miami. “When a hijacking like this takes place, all these security experts are drinking coffee and eating donuts while watching it unfold on TV. They’re not up there with the bad guys at their throats.”

Fearing passenger perception of a “police state,” he and other captains adamantly oppose posting sky marshals on planes, and would rather see the FAA empower pilots. Arming them and reinforcing their cockpits would let terrorists know they’d have to win a gun battle with pilots, many of whom are ex-military, protected by a bullet-proof bunker.

Cockpit doors. Jetliners are equipped with “flimsy” cockpit doors that are easy to penetrate, even when locked, pilots say.

“The FAA has permitted a flimsy cockpit door which really wouldn’t keep anybody out,” said Ralph Omholt, a licensed captain who flies Boeing 757s and 767s for a major airline, the name of which he asked not to disclose. “They’ve had cockpit break-ins before by sky-ragers, so this terrorist break-in isn’t anything new.”

“A large man running at full speed can break it down,” Gibson said of the door.

Actually, it doesn’t even take a large man.

“A woman on PCP kicked in a cockpit door not too long ago on a flight from Houston to Los Angeles,” noted Steve Elson, a former FAA airport security inspector, in an interview with WorldNetDaily.

Elson’s common-sense approach to safety was not warmly received in Washington, he says, so he quit in 1999. He’s blown the whistle on what he views as the FAA’s repeated failures to effectively improve security at the nation’s airports.

Elson agrees that cockpit doors should be hardened. At a minimum, he says, they should be secured by a deadbolt.

Gibson wants to see the entire back wall of cockpits replaced with bulletproof paneling.

Cockpit keys. In a brave stand, two stewardesses on American flight 11 out of Boston, the first plane to hit the trade center, tried to bar terrorists from entering the flight deck. But the terrorists slit their throats and apparently took the cockpit keys off them. They then opened the door and, more than likely, overcame the pilots – possibly killing them like the stewardesses – and steered the plane like a guided missile into the north tower.

It was a tragic lesson, pilots say.

“We should take the keys out of the flight attendants’ hands,” Gibson asserted. “The only ones who should have a key to the cockpit are the pilots. If the flight attendants want access, they should be allowed to enter only by calling the pilots on the flight interphone.”

To let them in, Gibson favors an electronic door lock that pilots can buzz open from inside the cockpit.

Cockpit cameras. Pilots like the idea of installing a hidden video camera in the ceiling just outside the cockpit door, and a viewing monitor inside the cockpit. That way, they can identify visitors, and keep an eye on activities just outside the flight deck, without opening the door.

“We should be able to see who’s standing out there without opening the door,” Gibson said.

He suggests the camera be encased in Kevlar and secured with a strong lock, so hijackers can’t remove it or shoot it out. It should also tape on a continuous loop like the cockpit voice recorder, he says.

Visiting the cabin. This should be a big no-no, pilots agree. U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson, husband of United flight 77 victim Barbara Olson, says that in his two cell phone calls he received from her on the fatal flight that struck the Pentagon, he got the sense that the pilots were in the back of the plane with her.

It’s not clear if the pilots were herded back there by the terrorists, possibly at knife-point, or if they left the flight deck on their own to help passengers.

Either way, captains agree, pilots should be trained never to leave the cockpit -- period.

That’s not the rule now.

“It’s a pilot’s option, as a last resort, to go back and resolve a dispute,” Gibson said. “But I think that’s all going to change now, and we’re no longer going to be allowed to go back there.”

“I think we’re just going to have to land and throw them [hijackers] off, assuming we get an impenetrable door,” he added. “In fact, that’s the way it should be.”

What about the fate of the passengers who would be left to deal with the terrorists, on their own, back in the cabin?

“If there’s somebody back there killing people – hey, you know what? – it’s better to triage 20 to 30 people in the back than 5,000 under a building,” Gibson said. “It’s a tough thing to say, but sometimes life is tough.”

Elson agrees with that strategy, saying the military has a term for it – “acceptable losses.”

He doesn’t think that pilots should leave the cockpit under any circumstances – even when nature calls. Another door to the lavatory could be added from the cockpit side, he suggests, to accommodate pilots’ bathroom needs.

Under current rules, the cockpit door doesn’t even have to be locked all the time, which is a big mistake, Elson says.

“Those cockpit doors never, never, should be left unlocked,” he said. “And as far as I’m concerned, the doors shouldn’t even be opened” during flight.

“If the pilot in command hears ‘knock-knock’ on his door, and it’s Abdul who says he’s got box-cutters and is going to start cutting if he doesn’t open up, the captain should say, ‘OK, go cut some boxes, Abdul, we’re going to land,’” Elson said.

Arming pilots. Pilots argue that if they can be entrusted with passengers’ lives, they can be entrusted with handling a weapon responsibly.

“If you can trust me with 100,000 pounds of explosives [jet fuel] in the wings every time I take off, I think I can be trusted to handle a firearm safely as well,” said American Airlines Captain Russell T. Cowles.

They also argue that, unlike sky marshals, they know the state of pressurization of their aircraft and, therefore, when and when not to fire a gun in any phase of flight.

As an added precaution, Gibson proposes letting pilots carry only guns firing rubber bullets or frangible rounds that “would do minimum damage to the aircraft during a discharge in pressurized flight.” He admits, however, it would be a “huge hurdle” for the FAA to OK such a move.

But the alternative of posting federal marshals on all commercial flights – something airlines once did – would be extremely costly, he argues.

“What a waste of money,” Gibson said. “You’d just have some guy spending his whole career riding in an airplane eating airline food.”

“He’d end up weighing 300 pounds,” he joked. “I mean, think about it. The sky marshal would be so easy to identify – he’d be the fattest guy on the airplane.”

Gibson, who’s flown for American since 1987 and commercially since 1977, is against arming passengers and flight attendants – not even with stun-guns or mace.

“That’s a bad idea,” he said, explaining that trained terrorists could turn such weapons against them.

The key to frustrating terrorists, pilots stress, is turning the cockpit into a fortress, and pilots into armed guards.

“We can have better [airport terminal] security screening and things like that,” Gibson said, “but if these guys are committed terrorists, they’re going to figure out how to get a weapon in.”

Or, they’ll figure a way to fashion a weapon on the plane, Elson says – not unlike prison inmates who learn to turn just about any otherwise harmless material into a shank.

“You can make a weapon better on the plane than most of that stuff [pocket knives and razors] they’re going to screen for now,” Elson said. “You can find metal that’s sharp on board.”

3 posted on 09/18/2001 3:48:12 PM PDT by Utah Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: extreme469
Good post. Could you put some formatting next time (especially paragraph breaks).

Thanks

4 posted on 09/18/2001 3:48:20 PM PDT by mattdono
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Righter-than-Rush
Me Too! and Give a Tazer Gun To The Captain and FLT-Attendents.....No Explosive Decompression!!!!
5 posted on 09/18/2001 3:48:21 PM PDT by cmsgop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: extreme469
Why make the job so complicated, put cell type doors bars this will prevent access, if that is the objective, you don't have to worry about pressurization probs. If airport security is so lax they can get a gun aboard then there is no fix, but plastic knives and box cutters well the pilots could have this thing on the ground then deal with the perps.
6 posted on 09/18/2001 3:48:23 PM PDT by boomop1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Utah Girl
Darn it, you beat me to it, by :08 seconds.
7 posted on 09/18/2001 3:49:09 PM PDT by mattdono
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: extreme469
'SharkFRee' making sure there are no 'FReeploading mullet' here.

WHERE WOULD YOU GET YOUR NEWS FROM IF FREEREPUBLIC WASN'T HERE? Thread 2


8 posted on 09/18/2001 3:52:53 PM PDT by d14truth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Utah Girl
They also argue that, unlike sky marshals, they know the state of pressurization of their aircraft and, therefore, when and when not to fire a gun in any phase of flight.

This guy just hit a nail on the head...there has been much talk about sleeping gas being pumped into cabins to thwart a hijacking effort...and Rush eluded to some "ingenious" ideas that have now been immediatly adopted....

My bet is that the pilots now flying are authorized to depressurize an aircraft in the event of a hijack...inducing a hypoxic enviornment. No gas mask can defend against hypoxia...we are not talking about rapid cabin depresurization...just blead off the pressure to an ambient 30,000 feet...everyone goes to sleep...

9 posted on 09/18/2001 3:56:26 PM PDT by oneway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: mattdono
Must be my fast fingers. ;-) I just hate reading an unformatted article.
10 posted on 09/18/2001 3:56:38 PM PDT by Utah Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: extreme469
I'm going to say this again!! And again, and again!!

We should have a federal CWP(concealed weapons permit) Anyone that holds a state CWP should be allowed, at thier expense, to take a federal course in firearms, firearms safety, and self-defense in an aircraft with a firearm while in flight. Now, before being allowed to take the course, the applicant would go through a THOROUGH background check, then when the class is finished they would get a FEDERAL CWP, which would allow them to carry ANYWHERE in the US and any US domestic aircraft.

A database would be put together for these CWP holders and would be accessable by Law enforcement and Airport security agents, a separate security checkpoint would be put in each airport for these CWP holders to allow them to be checked out by security on the database, retinal scans, and fingerprint checks. Then they would be allowed to board thier plane with thier personal firearms.

It would be cheaper, CWP's would pay for the class, and it would be harder to find out who does and who does not have a firearm on the aircraft, This would make everyone safer in the event of a terrorist attack. The terrorist would not have a clue who to go after, whereas a uniformed airmarshal will become the first target.

The only REAL expense, is the database and the extra security checkpoint, so that the people that went through them would stay as anonymous as possible.

Once 100,000 have been certified the feds and the FAA announce this fact to the world, that specially trained civilians will be on aircraft from now on, and the best thing is, they will be totally RANDOM!! There may be one on your flight, but then again, there may not be....because they will be on the plane only if they are actually going somewhere. Ain't that cool? Just an idea!!
11 posted on 09/18/2001 4:00:47 PM PDT by Aric2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: extreme469
Bump for a really good post!
12 posted on 09/18/2001 4:01:04 PM PDT by webster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mattdono

My dear brother and sister FReepers,

At this, of all times in my lifetime, I would like nothing more than to be able to read these threads and reply to them.  I have much I would like to say.

BUT, I cannot!

Why?

Because I am trying hard to raise the finances needed to keep FreeRepublic up and running so that we can continue to share valuable information and respond to it.

I beg you, if you have not yet donated to FreeRepublic this quarter,  do so now!

"And if you have donated, God Bless You, please ping your friends, and FReep on..."

I realize you are giving to lots of Relief efforts and I encourage you to do so.  But we need to help FR too.  Where would we be right now without it?

If you have no money, please come and bump the Fundraiser Thread.

I would really like to reach our goal quickly so that I and the rest of the dedicated FReepers who are working the Fundraiser Threads can participate in what is undeniably the most important time in FreeRepublic's history.

WHERE WOULD YOU GET YOUR NEWS FROM IF FREEREPUBLIC WASN'T HERE?  <--click here

Support FreeRepublic! Support the U.S.A. <--click here

13 posted on 09/18/2001 4:01:35 PM PDT by 2ndMostConservativeBrdMember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
No guns on airplanes! What are you, nuts?

There was another good alternative posted recently, I think on Lucianne.com, to have the pilot press a button, and the plane would auto-pilot in "safe" mode and land at a nearby, randomly chosen airport. Once pressed, it could not be overridden. Presto, no flying bombs.

This, together with locked, intruder-proof doors on the cockpit, and the gas as a fail-safe, ought to just about do it.

But please, I love guns, but not on airplanes.

14 posted on 09/18/2001 4:16:42 PM PDT by Eccl 10:2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Eccl 10:2
I think that it is a copout, ANY technology can be overridden!! ANY!! ALL US citizens have the right to defend themselves with a firearm. The only reason they should have special training is because they WOULD be on an aircraft.

No firearms on an airplane, Why do you think that this happened in the first place, because there were no passengers with a firearm to defend themselves.
15 posted on 09/18/2001 4:19:59 PM PDT by Aric2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Utah Girl
These seem like real solutions to the problem & real security (unlike the "did you pack your own bags" questions and the abolition of curbside check-in). I say let's do it up immediately.
16 posted on 09/18/2001 4:20:40 PM PDT by patlaw_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: extreme469
Pilots interviewed by WorldNetDaily argue that they’re much more qualified than government security experts or politicians – who “have failed us,” as one American Airlines captain charged – to come up with better ideas to protect their planes and passengers.

Bump for less intrusive gov't and self sufficiency. Does anyone really trust the political hacks of the DNC with security?? LMAO

17 posted on 09/18/2001 4:27:24 PM PDT by VRWC For Truth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Utah Girl
Thanks for the formatting; that's a great article that I otherwise would not have bothered reading.
18 posted on 09/18/2001 4:29:16 PM PDT by mrustow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: extreme469
I feel a lot better now, knowing that fingernail clippers are not being allowed (I carry a pair in my laptop bag).

Did I mention that I also carry a set of small screwdrivers to trouble-shoot my laptop? (~1" in length)? Ever tried to use a dime to remove the hard-drive of a laptop?

Woohoo. Can't wait to travel soon. Will be looking for plastic screwdrivers. Moron FAA. Hope they have a lot of knee braces. For the intellectually-challenged (AKA as STUPID people) this would be needed to assist the knee-jerk reaction bureaucrats in their time of pain.

19 posted on 09/18/2001 4:33:29 PM PDT by fuquadukie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: patlaw_guy
I think a bomb going off on an airplane was averted several years ago by the airline staff asking an Arab girl if she had packed her own bags or had anyone given her a gift to carry with her. It turned out that her boyfriend had given her a wrapped gift that was a bomb. I think this article is excellent, but I don't want to see those questions go away. The questions need to be augmented.
20 posted on 09/18/2001 4:45:20 PM PDT by Utah Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-35 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson