Being a frequent user of the shorter security lines for frequent flyers/1st class passengers at SJC, I can assure the questioner, that it is only the line leading up to security that is shorter. Once there, one has to go through the same screening as everyone else.

My AP style may be a bit rusty, but if I recall correctly, the rule is that in aircraft and military designations, a hyphen separates a letter followed by a number, and nothing separates a number followed by a letter. So copy editors following AP style insert the hyphen in "A[-]320," whereas if the designation were "320A," they'd leave it alone.

Since the author pointed out the incorrect hyphen, I'll give him a correction in return.

"All commercial airliners have the former. Others -- generally smaller types like the 737, A320 and various regional jets -- have both."

What "other" commercial airliners are there, exactly, other than "All"?

He likely meant:

"All commercial airliners have the former. Some -- generally smaller types like the 737, A320 and various regional jets -- have both."

TWA Flight 800 and, of course, the inspiration for everyone's feel-good hit of the summer, Flight 93.

We've all heard the conspiracy theory. You don't have to drop it into everything. Have some kool-aid and chill.

Patrick's right, Flight 800 and UA 93 shouldn't be in the category of "military shoot-downs of civilian aircraft." We all know that they were brought down by aliens.

Once again, if we're going to get picky about "A-320" versus A320, here's another. To quote the article:

(If you're wondering about the infamous D.B. Cooper, he ordered the crew to depressurize the cabin, then parachuted out the rear tail-cone exit, which on the old Boeing 727 did not include an in-flight lock.)

727's never had a "tail cone," unless you consider a screaming JT8D engine in the center, or number 2 position, a "cone." And the rear exit on those old 3-holers was actually a full-sized "vault" door (locked securely by pressurization), complete with self-contained ventral stairs (in the unpressurized empennage) designed for normal boarding and deplaning (provided you didn't mind the oil and hydraulic fluid leakage from the number 2 engine dripping all over you as you approached the stairs). It was out this door and down these stairs that Mr. Cooper made his unique exit. Note these stairs would not open fully in flight, due to airloads against the stair structure, but opened far enough, even for a full-sized man equipped with a parachute.

After the Cooper incident, airlines were forced to install an "in-flight locking device" to the ventral stairs, not the aft cabin door. The modification was ridiculously inexpensive, even by aviation terms, and immediately came to be known as "The Cooper Vane" in airline circles. It consisted of a spring loaded metal vane mounted on the left hand side of the ventral stairs cutout in the empennage. When the plane had no forward speed, the vane sat perpendicular to the direction of flight and did not prevent the stairs from being lowered. With forward speed, the vane rotated into the direction of flight and the small, crude deadbolt attached to the vane blocked the stairs lowering more than an inch or so...

Perhaps this was the precursor of the aviation security axiom of "too little, too late." At least it was a cheap and effective fix.

Well, the Air Force pilots need training and flight time, so those intercepts might not really cost as much as you think. When I owned a single engine Mooney we flew to the Bahamas every year. I was always intercepted by F102's or F106's. One time Miami approach control asked me exactly where I was because the Air Force interceptors couldn't find me. It was essentially a CAVU day and they had me on radar. They finally found me, but I suspected if I had been a Russian bomber that I would not have been so helpful. It was fun watching a supersonic interceptor trying to match our 150 knot airspeed by hanging out his gear, flaps, kitchen sink, etc. They would wave and smile after we saw them and fly off. That was a much better time, without the paranoia that surrounds us today.

NASA has an old DC-10 freighter where they open the cargo door in flight and stick a telescope out the side. I believe the Air Force has one or more similar aircraft for both optics and laser testing. So I don't think just an open door is going to bring down the aircraft ;-)

sPh

Well, the paper is printing a literal truth: the man was trying to open the door of the plane. It's just not as sexy to let everybody know that he had as much chance of actually getting the door open as he did changing the altitude by jumping up and down.

The accuracy of information spewed by your typical reporter isn't now and never has been very impressive. In areas of my own expertise, I've observed that your average daily reporter has an accuracy run rate of 50% to 70%. Experienced, top-flight daily reporters are a little better: 65% to 80% accurate. And the one Pulitzer Prize winning reporter I've worked with hit 95% accuracy. All of which makes sense if you consider how many days/weeks/months are invested in the stories. Your average reporter has a deadline a day or two away; the Pulitzer guy spent weeks on a follow-up to an in-depth report that he probably spent 6 months on.

We get what their editors pay for and there's not much point sweating the details; fix one reporter and you only have thousands more to put on the straight and narrow. It's not hard to anticipate the ongoing use of "A-320" in airline stories and "oxygen tanks" in stories related to SCUBA diving.

You can read an eye-witness account of what happened on the flight Patrick refers to here:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=550522&page=2&pp=15

(see the posting by Starwood Nut).

The eyewitness account differs quite substantially from the media account. In particular, the eyewitness never heard a bomb threat, and yet that was the reason (according to "authorities") that the plane was diverted to Denver. Instead, she heard a reference to a camera in the belly (something a schizophrenic might say). Also, the secret service agents on board played almost no role in subduing Pelayo-Ortega; they seem to have sat back and done nothing while passengers wrestled him to the floor and restrained him.