Shawn

I'd love to get the final report of their testing to compare with my
years of experience with both plus and negative G's.

Any idea where I might get same?

My second suggestion is to dump the cabin pressure and drop the masks.
If the terroriests have to put on a mask they will be limited to the
2-3 foot hose length from ceiling to mask. Would limit their activity
in cabin.

All of the things I would propose, together would stop any action in
cabin on the part of terroriests I believe?

Have a nice day.

Big John


On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 09:18:16 -0000, "ShawnD2112"
wrote:

This method was discussed quite a lot in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and
both Boeing and Airbus tested it out in the simulators. The presentation I
got from them both was that this was not a viable option. It may have, and
may will, work in exceptional circumstances in an isolated case, but their
view was that it wasn't worth developing a procedure and training pilots to
do it. A bulletproof door on the cockpit was a much better solution.

Shawn
"Big John" wrote in message
.. .
mateo

Not sure. Todays pilots and airline Companies don't want to do it as I
read. (

Big John

On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 22:03:03 -0500, Mateo wrote:

Big John wrote:

I want to put together an agenda where airline pilots will load and
unload the bird if it is hi-jacked (hi-jackers have no access to
cockpit).

No aileron (bank) or rudder (yaw) inputs other than what is need to
keep bird on a straight line. Only elevator input with a clean bird
(no flaps, etc.).

The figures given seem to be about 2.5 +G's and 1.5 -G's. I'm not sure
those are the figures I want? Are these 'company' figures for
passenger comfort or airframe longevity or the manufactures structural
limits that should not be exceeded at any time? Also what is design
ultimate if it is available?
Isn't that essentially what the El Al captain did back in the 70s?