The matter of flying and “the war on terror”; Andreas Lubitz, his problems, Germanwings and so on
I have been wondering quietly to myself for a few days since Tuesday, and the news that a bloke deliberately locked his fellow Flying-Officer out of the cockpit and crashed the entire plane into a mountainside at the speed of an air-rifle bullet, about the strategic wisdom of measures taken by our supposed “leaders” in regard to what they call “The War On Terror”.
I will not make an anodyne speech about how “our thoughts are with the victims and their families” for
(a) they are anyway, and
(b) it’s anodyne corporate wallpaper when said in this way (you might just pray to God instead if it makes things better or at least less awful, and which you can) and
(c) all the Public-EnemyClass-GramscoFabiaNazis say this crap when they are trying to cover up something and they don’t mean it a toss anyway, being bad people a-priori; so they’ve devalued it. So I shan’t do it.
Now then, to The Main Business.
There can be no such thing as a “War On Terror”. How do you wage war against a tactic of war, or a “strategic objective”? You can only wage a war on the actual people that execute at least one of a range of different tactics or strategies.
It so far appears that the door to the cockpit of this sadly-doomed plane possessed locking devices strong enough to prevent breaching with an axe. In the wake of 9/11 this seems all very well, but doesn’t take account of probabilities far far higher than an armed hijack by pre-capitalist-barbarian nerds (you all know who there are) armed with stanley-knives. Such higher probabilities must, it seems, include pilots with mental problems serious enough to put their “fitness to fly” in question – regardless of the level of skills they have.
It appears that these locking devices could be commanded from inside the cockpit; and also then _not_ by a flight-deck officer outside it who could then not override them.
The obvious way round this problem, if our “masters” believe that armed air-hijacking is a real threat, and that there is actually what they call a “war on terror” (the need for such a war is indeed rather arguable doubtful) is to do one or else more of the following things, in light of the fact that it’s pretty hard to take, say a Bren Gun or other “medium machine gun” (or even a 0.5″ rifle) into the passenger compartment of an airliner:-
(1) Arm selected passengers. Choose _only_ Ethnic White Males from the Anglosphere Nations, who look fit but inconspicuous, and over the age of, let us say, 56 or 58 or 60 (they have “lived” and they “know all about the world”) who have had military training, or “look trustworthy”, and offer them a _loaded_ semi-automatic sidearm to carry on the plane, for a discount of $500 on their ticket price – plus a bonus offer on next flight. (Obviously the safety-catch would be “on”.)To be elected to the Roman Senate, you had to be over 55 I think, and have “done useful things” in your life, for people. Sean will corroborate this, or not, as it pleases him.
They have to deliver it then, this firearm, on arrival, unused – unless it was “fired for good reason” which they are duty-bound to explain to the Police. A short round-nosed or flat-nosed cartridge of rather large calibre such as 0.45″ 0r even 0.5″ with a reduced propellant-charge would minimise damage to the plane in the event of a “miss”, would certainly “stop” a hijacker (he’d fall gasping blood hopefully, even with a mere chest-wound or back-wound – more probable) so that he could be immobilised for a little time until everyone nearby sits on his head, and the plane’s repair costs would be nugatory compared to the insurance payouts and compensation in the event of a “full crash”. Oh, and the cockpit doors, if lockable should be breachable by firearms through the lock. By the time a terrorist with a gun has got going (even if he got one on board) a White Ethnic Male Passenger in his 60s will have shot the bastard through the chest with a square-ended round or slug.
(2) Alter the current protocols by which “certain passengers” are screened pre-flight. Stop overscreening “old white ladies from the Anglosphere” or of “non-ethnic whites”; I’d better not say more here for you know what’s coming next. Screen “certain others”, rather excessively well. Then, what will happen fast is that the global polarisation of debate that will assuredly ensue rather faster, and will originate from in particular the “United Nations” (one of our main enemies) and also from the PoliticalEnemyClasses of certain nations that have nuclear weapons and/or are trying to develop these, will help to isolate the real problem in despite of the efforts of Western White Ethnic GramscoFabiaNazi “multiculturalists”.
These latter, the WEGFaNs, twho are White and Anglospheric and not “ethnic” therefore as the term is defined, and really really very nasty people without a shred of ordinary morality, are the real buggers that want the rest of us dead actually. This is because they intellectually despise us, our culture, our aspirations and our public tastes for lovely exciting trivia that don’t matter and are good in themselves. This is to say; things like burgers-and-chips and good cars and big wall-tellies that do fun stuff, and scurrilous newspapers, and cheap flights to places where young people can afford to stay for a few days and get a good shag with people they’ve just met. These bastards try to use other pre-capitalist-barbarians (who sadly perhaps don’t know any better, yet – but will in time, to their own cost when they get dumped as “useful idiots”) as their catspaws, as I have often said earlier on this very blog.
(3) Retro-fit all passenger planes with ejectable seats and passenger parachutes. No airline wants its passengers – their customers, which is what they are – to die horribly while taking advantage of its product. This is a marketing axiom, I think, and would get you thgout business school perhaps on its own. I don’t know what a “business school” is, never having been inside one, but I have run businesses, and it’s probably bad to kill your paying punters.
But I think we’d have to call this one, above, “theory A”.
So, I think we’ll really have to implement (1) or (2). And open the cockpit doors again.
In July 1969, I flew to Lebanon on an “Alia” flight (Royal Jordanian Airlines, I remember, I think?) from London, via Rome, Istambul, Aman and to Beirut, on the same plane. The cockpit door was not locked, in fact there was no door as far as I remember, and at several times I knocked on the wall and was allowed by the driver to take photos through the front windows while we were landing at various places. As a student I thought this would be interesting, and the pilots indulged me, the gents that they were. I still have the Kodak transparencies somewhere in my library. At one point a woman in a niqab got out a petrol-stove and proceeded to cook something in the aisle of the plane. I think it was a “Caravelle”. I think it was mutton.