so if you are worried about a bomb on board a 747 jumbo jet:

[SF Klein]

The program did highlight some interesting flaws in the us security system.

Wasn't the plane en route TO the U.S.? That would imply it was the origination airport that had the security snafu.

 

[dyna-ti]

Plane was fine
Internal fireball killed everyone though :shock:

 

[heathy]

Actually, it turns out that the nut jobs dad, a well respected nigerian banker had told the us cia that his son had joined other nutters in yemen months before, they then put his name on a list.
When it came to the day, he managed to get through 3 airports, the last one amsterdam he was questioned by us officials as everyone does, even more so if you look like a nut. He was questioned and let through.
Then when all us bound flights are in the air another check is made, at this point they decided to question him further on landing.

Now if it were me, i would have had him dragged into a room and given the rubber glove treatment

 

[Neil]

I saw that earlier, that test was to replicate the plane that some nut job tried blowing up on xmas day. It was at 10.000 ft and wasn't high enough to be pressurised enough for that type of damage.

Isn't that a bit chicken and egg, though? There would be some pressure differential, and weren't they conducting the experiment to ascertain the type of damage? That being the case, they wouldn't know the extent of the damage until after the test, and surely they couldn't be absolute about the impact of pressurisation and differential, without actually being at the same conditions?

However, if that aspect wouldn't have made a damned bit of difference to the integrity of the fuselage whilst in flight, have they accounted for the stresses on the fusulage from whizzing through the air whilst an IED went off inside?

From what I've always read, a good number of downed flights are due to failure in structural integrity due to either extreme weather conditions and / or instrument failure or malfunction with air-speed. With that in mind, surely an explosion inside the fuselage, that has that visual amount of impact on something on the ground, that isn't pressurised and at equilibrium, may have more of an impact during flight, with at least some pressurisation, pressure differential, and undergoing the rigeurs of flight at hundreds of miles an hour?

 

[Easy_Rider]

Meh, its just a scam to fool the nutjobs not to bother trying.

 

[Andy R]

Meh, its just a scam to fool the nutjobs not to bother trying.

Funny - exactly what I thought too.

 

[Andy R]

Double post

 

[Andy R]

Or triple even

 

[Neil]

Meh, its just a scam to fool the nutjobs not to bother trying.

Wouldn't you say they're beyond logical argument?

I would have thought it's more to address fears for the normal, non-terrorist flyers. You know the sort of thing <hand waving> "Don't worry about the fact that this bomber actually got on the plane...", "These aren't the droids you're looking for...", "'cos just look - not a scratch... plane would be fine... the dents would just buff out with a bit of T-Cut", "Are you ever cold when flying?"

 

[BoyBurning]

Meh, its just a scam to fool the nutjobs not to bother trying.

Wouldn't you say they're beyond logical argument?"

No. Maybe beyond 'reasoned argument', but not 'logical'.

In any case, it was all down to the masking tape.

If it hadn't been taped all along the fuselage the plane would be in a million pieces now.

I've heard that the stuff is sooo strong, that people use it to reinforce Manitou headtubes...

WOW!