AA to equip anti missile laser stuff meng!

[taseal]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22506597/?GT1=10755

lol

[Berkut]

Aw great, one more thing to break.

I hope it can be MEL'ed.

[RPJ]

Finally! This needed to be done years ago. This will add one more layer of defense for civil passenger aircraft. Israels airline has been doing this for decades and its well overdue for US carriers. Unfortunately this won't stop a ballistic RPG(s) fired at an aircraft when it is on take-off or landing roll. But something is better than nothing!

[juxtapilot]

How do they test it?

[killbilly]

Originally Posted by juxtapilot

How do they test it?

Once.

[athomeinthesky]

It probably won't get past the test phase unless another terrorist attack happens, and if it does it will be years before they fight it out about who is going to have to pay for it.

[Sprint100]

A huge waste of money and sense of false security. Aside from those in war or flying in hostile areas how many missiles have been shot at U.S. commercial aircraft on U.S. soil? In that case I want plastic seats since gum and cloth in my clothing don't mix. While they're at it make a soundproof area for loud kids/loud parents.

[PGT]

Originally Posted by Sprint100

A huge waste of money and sense of false security. Aside from those in war or flying in hostile areas how many missiles have been shot at U.S. commercial aircraft on U.S. soil?

excellent point

[Cessnaflyer]

The only reason that AA is doing it now is to get a little extra free cash for the leasing rights to some of their aircraft.

AA does some very smart things to keep their heads above water sometimes.

[mtsu_av8er]

Originally Posted by Sprint100

While they're at it make a soundproof area for loud kids/loud parents.

Finally - an idea that makes sense!!!

[seagull]

FedEx has been flying this equipment for quite some time now, on multiple aircraft: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...aw091806p3.xml

[Berkut]

Originally Posted by Sprint100

Aside from those in war or flying in hostile areas how many missiles have been shot at U.S. commercial aircraft on U.S. soil?

Do we have to wait until it actually happens before we start trying to prevent it?

If there is a credible risk of missile attack, I would rather them start working on a defense now, rather than waiting until one does get shot down and have the defense take years to implement.

If there isn't a credible risk yet, at least the technology will be developed and ready to go if needed.

[Sprint100]

Originally Posted by Berkut

Do we have to wait until it actually happens before we start trying to prevent it?

If there is a credible risk of missile attack, I would rather them start working on a defense now, rather than waiting until one does get shot down and have the defense take years to implement.

If there isn't a credible risk yet, at least the technology will be developed and ready to go if needed.

I see the gubment has you scared ####less On the reals, if people paid attention then that would be more effective and cost efficient than using tax money and relying on the government for a what if.
I guess we need to put a gunner at the rear of every airliner too, just in case. Ooh, ooh composite radar-absorbing skin too because you just never know
Testing ain't free and there are more pressing issues I'd rather see that tax money go to.

[tonyw]

Name one commercial airliner that's been shot down by a MANPAD.

Oh, you can't?

And even the one that was hit in Iraq landed safely?

So let's go and piss away lots of money that could be spent on oh, I dunna, maybe screening the cargo that goes in the belly of the plane on something that is a low level threat.

If you're a terrorist, why the hell would you bother to use a missile when you know cargo isn't being screened?

What's going to bring down the plane? A bomb at FL350 or a missile that may very well miss?

[darrenf]

Originally Posted by tonyw

Name one commercial airliner that's been shot down by a MANPAD.

Oh, you can't?

And even the one that was hit in Iraq landed safely?

So let's go and piss away lots of money that could be spent on oh, I dunna, maybe screening the cargo that goes in the belly of the plane on something that is a low level threat.

If you're a terrorist, why the hell would you bother to use a missile when you know cargo isn't being screened?

What's going to bring down the plane? A bomb at FL350 or a missile that may very well miss?

So you are saying shoulder fired missiles are no threat?? Reactive instead of proactive security, boy Tony, you could work for the DoHS. I am not saying we don't have other holes that need to be sealed, but to discount missiles because it hasn't yet happened here is isn't the smartest thing I've heard you say.

[n57flyguy]

Originally Posted by Sprint100

I see the gubment has you scared ####less On the reals, if people paid attention then that would be more effective and cost efficient than using tax money and relying on the government for a what if.
I guess we need to put a gunner at the rear of every airliner too, just in case. Ooh, ooh composite radar-absorbing skin too because you just never know
Testing ain't free and there are more pressing issues I'd rather see that tax money go to.

[seagull]

Originally Posted by tonyw

And even the one that was hit in Iraq landed safely?

Landed safely? They were EXTREMELY lucky.

Bury your head in the sand some more, perhaps.

[tonyw]

We've got limited resources.

Look at the threat from terrorism as a leaky roof.

You've got a pinhole that barely drips (the missile threat).

And then you've got a hole that's three feet in diameter (not screening the cargo).

Which hole do you plug first?

[mtsu_av8er]

Originally Posted by tonyw

Which hole do you plug first?

The one that makes for good sound bites!!

[darrenf]

Originally Posted by tonyw

Name one commercial airliner that's been shot down by a MANPAD.

Is that something Tony wears once a month??













Sorry Tony, I love ya, but it was all teed up, I couldn't help it.

[Sprint100]

Originally Posted by mtsu_av8er

The one that makes for good sound bites!!

True dat

[seagull]

Originally Posted by tonyw

We've got limited resources.

Look at the threat from terrorism as a leaky roof.

You've got a pinhole that barely drips (the missile threat).

And then you've got a hole that's three feet in diameter (not screening the cargo).

Which hole do you plug first?

Yes, limited resources. How do you propose to screen all cargo? What is your method so that it does not completely destroy the business model for the carriers?

[tonyw]

Originally Posted by seagull

Yes, limited resources. How do you propose to screen all cargo? What is your method so that it does not completely destroy the business model for the carriers?

They screen 100 percent of the cargo that goes in and out of the port of Singapore. If they can do that, they can certainly screen a much LOWER volume of cargo.

[seagull]

Originally Posted by tonyw

They screen 100 percent of the cargo that goes in and out of the port of Singapore. If they can do that, they can certainly screen a much LOWER volume of cargo.

I'm not so sure about that. In any event, what is the time-definite delivery requirement for those shipments?