Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jane4IceCream who wrote (125777)	9/26/2001 12:39:45 PM
From: benwood	Respond to of 436258

Still, if nobody can take control of the flight deck, then you don't need a cam. You can let the rest of the flight crew use eyeball visuals to watch the cabin. No need to snoop, just have those people out there. When you eliminate the value of hijacking the craft, you no longer have a need to carry guns, pepper spray, etc. You are still left with air rage and so forth, but that sort of thing is better dealt with in person, not by cam, for reasons similar to why uniformed off-duty police officers in a retail store do more to eliminate shoplifting than plainclothed security people do. For that matter, a flight marshal who is unarmed except for billy club & martial arts skills on a flight (in addition to the virtually impervious cabin doors) would be all that you need to thwart most problems in the passenger area, and likely a strong deterrent against air rage as well, and you still don't have to have the problem of a gun on an aircraft.