That’s true if by “migrating” you mean “dead, frozen, crated, in the belly of an airplane.”

Again, great work.

It’ll be even more impressive to see this aircraft flying in person. Well done Airbus.

Guns in aircraft will get people killed.

Cars on roads will get people killed. or Guns in banks will get people killed.

See how idiotic such a comment is? As they say, Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.

Guns have been on aircraft for decades with FAMs and now FFDO’s yet it isn’t the wild west up there. The problem has been that there haven’t been enough for even the lowest of ratio’s of armed pilots/FAM’s vs. flights.

If a terrorist had a choice of air carriers which do you think he would chose, the one that has armed pilots or the one without? I would guess the one without.

If you had a choice of air carriers which do you think you would chose, the one that has armed pilots or the one without? From your answers I would also guess the one without. Why you would chose to travel on an airline that has a better chance of terrorists attempting a hijacking is beyond me.

I put my money in a bank with armed guards rather than one without (and that’s just money, which is nothing compared to the value I put on my life).

Boy, I’m gone for a few days and I end up missing quite a bit. I’m doing some catch up now…..

So I suppose you think it’s smarter to arm the pilots instead of a well trained cabin crew? Then it must be smarter to take the risk of loosing two pilots instead of two cabin crew members acting like guards?

Trained cabin crew aren’t the answer IMHO. With the locked cabin door it makes no difference what is happening on the cabin side. The plan is to protect the cockpit at all costs which means the terrorists can kill everyone on the other side but the door will never open. Training cabin crew would be for their own peace of mind but do little in the over all scope of things. The pilots are the only ones that matter (unfortunately), you lose them and you lose the airplane.

Many reasons to that:
1) Pilots are not gun experts (or shouldn’t be). Even if they received a couyple of hours of training does it make them experts in gun fighting in a jet cabin?

Training is by far more than a “couple of hours” and they also have annual recurrent training similar to any other Federal Law Enforcement Officer. Training is also more than just firearm training as it includes intensive hand to hand combat in close quarters.

2) The “need” of a gun in the cockpit implies that all the ground so called security checks are useless. Why bother the pax about a tiny nail clipper in a hand luggage if anybody can hide guns in an airliner? The best way to insure safety is to prevent terrorist (and weapons) to board in.

For the most part most of the ground security checks are just about useless. For example, folks who cater the aircraft don’t have to go through security. So some high school educated idiot can apply for a job and find himself plane-side in a few weeks with little or no supervision. Wonder how the weapons the 9/11 hijackers got on board the aircraft? Little, if anything at all, has changed.

Yeah, just like the terrorists have ample time to grab a few passengers to act as improvised bulletproof vest. Besides, if only the pilots are armed while hiding safely behind their paranoia-door, that won’t stop the terrorists to use their sharpened knitting pins against the cabin crew and the passengers. I don’t think airliner pilots are the sort of people we want to burden with such psychological pressure.

Armed with a gun or not, the door never opens if there is trouble in the back. Like I said before, the terrorists can kill ever person on the other side of the door but the door will never open.

Arming the Flight Attendants is a rather stupid idea. FAMs (Federal Air Marshalls) go through an even more intensive training than FFDO’s as they must be able to work in teams and hand the complexities of disturbances in varying cabin sizes. The only thing arming a FA does is provide the terrorists with a gun on the “other side” of the cockpit door.

What the FAM’s do and what the FFDO’s prepare for are 2 separate things and they are training accordingly.

You’re going to have two men, or two women, or a man and a woman who are flying an airliner. Pilots – not law enforcement agents or members of the armed forces – plain old everyday pilots.

Armed pilots are NOT “plain old everyday pilots”, they are Federal Flight Deck Officers and have been selected through psych. evals, testing, interviews, etc. as well as well trained to the appropriate standards. Folks in the armed forces receive no training on how to engage in combat in their aircraft and do little if no training above learning how to shoot the gun.

__________

From a good portion of those that are against the gun issue I’m seeing a lot of simple fear of the weapon. ….it’s an accident waiting to happen, it causes more harm than good, it takes a marksman to handle the weapon/situation, etc. I can understand the hesitation as I know guns aren’t for everyone. Guns are fairly common in the US albeit a bit blown out of proportion by the media. Most States have a Concealed Weapon Permit that allows regular citizens to carry a firearm (with plenty of restrictions though) with a bit of training.

A lot of it stems from a fear of the unknown and comes from lack of exposure. I think in such cases you have to eliminate the extremes and find the truth somewhere in the middle. Ignore the “errant bullets will bring the plane down” to the “there are no problems with the practice” extremes. Is it a perfect solution? No, but the hazards can/have been greatly minimized to the point where it is believed that such “risks” are worth taking to prevent any cockpit attack from being successful.

Not every pilot can/will carry a firearm in the US but as someone said, the possibility that 1 of the 2 pilots up front is carrying a gun could be enough to deter any future hijacking. If that’s the case then we win without having to fire a single shot.

So Coanda, you’re saying that composites have their place in an aircraft but perhaps not the whole frame? I don’t think anyone said that composites were the be-all/end-all of aircraft manufacturering. Your initial comment that stated that metals are superior to composites in all regards was a rather misdirected blanket statement, and wrong IMO. Composites possess characteristics that metals can’t match which shouldn’t be too hard to believe. Once again, you frequently mention wing ribs which are only one component of a large aircraft. If by switching in composites for metal in just about every other component manufacturers can not only save weight but create shapes previously cost prohibitive with metals. Bombardier cuts the majority of the CRJ wing from a solid block of aluminum which is incrediably wasteful and inefficient.

Burt Rutan accomplished in a matter of years what NASA and other space agencies took decades to do with metal. Obviously his “out of the box” approach to the task permitted composites to be used for space travel, not to mention his years of doing the same with aicraft (The Voyager, Long EZ). Dismissing the thought of such advances in Commerical aircraft is pretty narrowminded and perhaps a bit short sighted. I’m not saying that I understand all the in’s and out’s of this complex topic but when there is a will, there is a way in aviation.

I was always under the impression that the Yanks paid much less than us for fuel whether it is for cars or aeroplanes. I also thought that it was because in America any government who put the prices up would be out on their ear – a bit like the gun laws.

Well, we have domestic supplies that most European countries don’t have. In fact some European countries don’t have any domestic oil reserves. We import oil to offset our own production where as your European countries have to import most, if not all, of your oil. Guess who’s going to pay more for gasoline?

frankly apart from tubes, composites are less effective in every structural area than metallics purely based on the weight of the final designed part.

I find this hard to believe considering just about every modern military fighter is being built with more and more composite material. I can’t think of a more weight critical program in the harshest of conditions (temperature and stress variations).

http://www.global-defence.com/2003/uavs_03.htm

Composites have displaced conventional materials such as aluminum because they have several advantages. They have lower density and greater strength and stiffness than aluminum, therefore a smaller lighter structure can carry the same load. Studies conducted by Boeing indicate that a 38 per cent composite structural weight can result in a 40 per cent reduction in empty weight, 39 per cent reduction in wing area and a 33 per cent fuel saving for the same mission profile when compared to an aircraft of conventional metal structure.

Another big advantage is that composites are relatively insensitive to flaws. Fatigue testing of composite structures demonstrated their high resistance to cracking and that fractures generally do not propagate. Composite materials are very stable and so are not subject to corrosion as are metallic structures. However, in the design process, careful attention must be paid to composite/metal interaction because through galvanic action some metals will corrode when in contact with carbon fibre/resin laminate.

Remember that Boeing has a significant military R&D division that Airbus doesn’t necessarily have access to.

Here’s a list that I quickly turned up thanks to Google:

http://www.epp.goodrich.com/why.shtml

Benefits of Composites

Composites offer many advantages over other materials. Within aerospace and marine markets, where exceptional performance is required but weight is critical, composites continue to grow in importance. The many advantages of composites may be summarized as:

* Stronger and stiffer than metals on a density basis
o For the same strength, lighter than steel by 80% and aluminum by 60%
o Superior stiffness-to-weight ratios

* Capable of high continuous operating temperatures
o Up to 250°F in many composites
o Up to 2000°F with FyreRoc composites, Goodrich’s new inorganic resin

* Highly corrosion resistant
o Essentially inert in the most corrosive environments

* Electrically insulating properties are inherent in most composites (depending on reinforcement selected).
o Yet composites can be made conducting or selectively conducting as needed.

* Tailorable thermal expansion properties
o Can be compounded to closely match surrounding structures to minimize thermal stresses

* Tunable energy management characteristics
o High energy absorption or high energy conductivity at designer’s choice
o Frequency selective acoustical and electromagnetic energy passage

* Exceptional formability
o Composites can be formed into many complex shapes during fabrication, even providing finished, styled surfaces in the process.

* Outstanding durability
o Well-designed composites have exhibited apparent infinite life characteristics, even in extremely harsh environments

* Low investment in fabrication equipment
o The inherent characteristics of composites typically allow production to be established for a small fraction of the cost that would be required in metallic fabrication.

* Reduced Part Counts
o Parts that were formerly assembled out of several smaller metallic components can be fabricated into a larger single part. This reduces manufacturing and assembly labor and time.

* Corrosion Resistance
o The non-reactive nature of many resins and reinforcements can be custom selected to resist degradation by many common materials and in corrosive environments.
o Benefits include lower maintenance and replacement costs.

* Low Observable
o Radar works by sending out directional radio waves (electromagnetic radiation) through the air, then listening for a reflected return from an airplane or other object. Composites are normally transparent to electromagnetic radiation, but can be “seeded” with appropriate materials to absorb such radiation and divert its energy away from the source. This low observability is called “stealth” in the popular press, and is a vitally important capability to our war fighters.
o Composite materials can also be used to reduce transmitted mechanical noise from a ship or submarine to the surrounding water, thus making it more difficult to detect vessels using acoustic means. This capability is of particular importance in Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW)

Obviously in commerical aviation the Low Observability aspect isn’t as important or even a good thing but you get the idea.

As manufacturers push their designs to squeeze out every ounce of efficiency they’ll need the flexibility of composite materials in order to achieve shapes and designs. I think in the future landing gear could be the only significant aircraft system that is metal but you never know.