Glare luggage containers
 

http://comp.uark.edu/~dmorton/images/misc/0102news2.jpg

http://comp.uark.edu/~dmorton/images/misc/0102news3.jpg

These luggage containers are composed of a material dubbed 'Glare', which might be used on airliners soon.

From the Scientific American article:

<blockquote><i>
Glare (short for glass reinforced), consists of multiple aluminum layers interspersed with layers of fiberglass and adhesive bonding that are supple yet strong. When used in fabricating luggage containers, Glare can absorb bomb blasts without breaching

As Glare expands with the blast, it absorbs the explosive energy and redistributes the impact load to the adjacent surface area rather than to one specific weak spot. The bomb blast leaves a sizable deformation in the container's surface, but it remains intact. Moreover, whereas other FAA-tested containers were also able to contain the bomb blast, Glare, whose glass fibers boast a melting point of 1,500 degrees Celsius, could resist the subsequent luggage-fueled fire inside the container. The postblast fire melts Glare's innermost aluminum layer, but in doing so the underlying adhesive bond carbonizes, keeping the fiberglass layers in place and effectively forming a fire wall that prevents the container from collapsing.

The Explosive Containment System3 (Ecos3) container that incorporates Glare--designed by Galaxy Aviation Securi-ty in Egg Harbor Township, N.J.--is 150 pounds heavier than standard aluminum luggage containers. Because extra weight means lower profits, aluminum luggage containers remain the industry standard.
</i></blockquote>

I don't want this to sound like an anti-capitalist rant or anything but isn't it always about the money? It took 9/11 to convince Airlines to start installing reinforced cockpit doors, lets hope it doesn't take a similar incident to convince them to start using these too. Of course, with profits down since fewer are flying I doubt they'll be buying these Glare luggage containers soon anyway.

The problem here is that nobody notices security when it works, only when it fails. The first airline to boast "Air Marshals" armed with guns loaded with GLASER rounds (Air Marshals in the 70s carried them as they were the only rounds found to be airplane safe), Glare luggage containers and a sealed cockpit would probably see passenger levels rise for a while, but once a year or so has passed without incident the extra features will just be seen as expensive extras by both passengers and airlines.

Pete

It's always about money, but in the air money is about weight. That 150 lbs per container (and there are several per plane) is going to cost you a fortune in fuel over the long run.

Same with reinforced cockpit doors, though there you also have the problem of structural integrity -- if you brace the door to the structure of the airplane you may change the way the airframe reacts to stresses.

Heck, same goes with air marshalls... those guys weigh more than 150 lbs and not only do they cost fuel, they take up a seat.

Of course it's about money. Do you intentionally fly with the most expensive carrier on the assumption that they're spending the money on things like reinforced doors, special aluminum-fiberglass luggage containers, etc? Maybe you do, but everyone else I know goes with the lowest priced carrier they can find. So the competition in the industry is all priced based -- of course, since airplane seats are basically a commodity. That's why Southwest Airlines has done so well; they have the lowest costs and thus the lowest prices.

The only reason cars have seatbelts, bumpers, shatterproof windshields, door locks, etc. is because the law requires that they have them. If the law didn't require these things, there would be at least some manufacturer that would come out with a $2000 new car that was basically a death trap. But people would buy it because either a) they're stupid, b) they're incredibly cheap, c) they're dirt poor and it is all they can afford.

Of course, cars are different -- auto manufacturers (especially minivans, Mercedes, Volvo) commonly promote their safety records in ads. That's not what you see in airline ads -- it's all about the money. Maybe if some airline started going on tv and bragging about their safety record, the new things they keep doing to continually improve their safety and security, etc. they would see an increase in their number of passengers per flight. I can see it now: "Fly America West. No crashes, no accidents, no hijackings in 384 days."

It'd be interesting to see. I certainly try to fly Quantas to Australia (born there but don't live there currently) whenever possible due to their practically spotless safety record. I think it's changing slightly now, but they used to replace parts that were in such good condition they could and did sell them onto other airlines. As far as I'm aware they've yet to have a plane crash either.

Pete

Money had little to do with it. Reinforced cockpit doors were prohibited by FAA regulations. The FAA kept dragging its feet on the door concept. But then a reinforced cockpit door is a major engineering job. For example, what happens if the plane suffers a cockpit depressurization? Does the now sealed cockpit door collapse the bulkhead into the cockpit? Do the locks keep pilot and copilot from escaping after a crash? What happens during a fire. Yes even that is part of the engineering design.

Design News magazine addressed some of the problems in a cockpit door designed after 11 Sept in a rush to get FAA approval.

Some airlines had inquired on reinforced cockpit doors. But the FAA would not move. The only airline I know with reinforced cockpit doors was El Al - not subject to the FAA graveyard mentality.

Price was never an major issue but then you would be surprised how much a reinforced cockpit door can cost.

I keep citing FAA graveyard mentality. But then attempts to get a reinforced cockpit door was consistent with other FAA foot dragging. Money was not a bottleneck. It was the FAA.

The problem is that flying is already so safe that

1) One incident can make a major swing in the stats -- you can go from going first to worst with one crash, as the Concorde did.

2) There really isn't much differentiation on safety between the commercial carriers on similar flights.