Galt's Gulch

Airport worker who stopped alleged plane theft: 'This isn't going to happen again'

Posted by $ nickursis 5 years, 7 months ago to Government
15 comments | Share | Flag

It seems like there should be more to this story, especially if he was planning on being an Alaska Airlines copycat? People just jump fences at airports and can climb on board? I think they need better airplane keys for the doors....
SOURCE URL: https://abcnews.go.com/US/airport-worker-stopped-alleged-plane-theft-happen/story?id=58006229

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by ColHogan 5 years, 7 months ago
    Also, all airport workers and flight crews should be armed. In many cases, in-flight highjackings could be stopped if the passengers could carry arms.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 5 years, 7 months ago
    That airport worker is my hero.
    As for the wannabe hijacker obtaining access, methinks doors may be left open when maintenance is taking place inside. May be the only way to get some air.
    Me dino now recalls me as a kid summer jobs of loading parked 18-wheeler trailers and boxcars.
    Whoo-wee! In Alabama summer heat!
    Really enjoyed all those cools showers after work.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by NilsAndersson 5 years, 7 months ago
    Generally speaking, single-engine planes usually have an ignition lock requiring a key, much like most cars.

    Larger, multi-engine planes usually do NOT have this feature. The "protection" is that there are comparatively few people who can fly these planes.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by EgoPriest 5 years, 7 months ago
    Dr Hurd Special on September 11th, 2001:
    https://youtu.be/If0iWfWj6vo

    This is an interview conducted on the day of, with an airline pilot who voices concerns with the low safety standards at the time.

    As Mary Ann Sures observed in "Facets of Ayn Rand," anger went out of the world with Ms. Rand's passing. Now, listening back on this interview, I realize that, without her philosophy of Objectivism, not even 9/11 (or any subsequent atrocity) could be enough of a shock to "trigger" that healthy emotional response of indignant anger at the sight of an obvious injustice in most people who can only whine about their apathetic sadness and confusion.

    Intellectually (and emotionally) disarmed by gangs of professional cowards and cynics in academia, politics and beyond, too many have allowed themselves to become the silent, opium-addicted "victims" of an historical (post-modern, egalitarian) trend that continues to spread & gain momentum. over a generation after the biggest wake-up call we've had since Pearl Harbor.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by $ nickursis 5 years, 7 months ago
      Well said and direct. Note that this is not new, so how would you explain such a widespread effect? Who are these gangs of professional cowards and cynics? Why would they decide that they needed to take action like this?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by EgoPriest 5 years, 7 months ago
        Only individuals exist. Actions are actions of individuals. If they "conspire" to a joint undertaking (like 9/11), that action connects directly with the part played by each individual directly involved and does NOT connect to any individual NOT directly involved (not morally, morally those persons are unknowing pawns or victims themselves).

        We have to not think like collectivists, draw a firm epistemological line between what is known and what is a premature "integration" in seeking to understand who is doing what, when, where and how.

        There are no "forces" at work (that is pure Platonism).
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by $ nickursis 5 years, 7 months ago
          Ok, now we are slipping back into the high level labels, keep it simple.You have a false premise "Only individuals exist". You are assuming individuals cannot band together for purposes of survival, power, implementing an objective. So, that would not allow armies, military, tribes, political parties and the like, which is clearly false. You are trying to make a particular philosophy fit reality and it is not valid. Individuals to exist, but they function in groups and units from family to nations.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by EgoPriest 5 years, 7 months ago
            Apart from "a particular philosophy" you have no such concept as "reality" (or any other concept). There's a gap as vast as the island of Manhattan between all the disparate individuals living their lives -- and the Platonic "forces" rationalists reify to tie them all together.

            That document Dobrian posted to explain "Q" is pure science fiction, a "Big Lie" only to the addle-brained readers who buy into such elaborate constructs. Everything in the wikipedia article on it is spot on (having read both).

            M2, here we come (and no, that's not a "thing").
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo