A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

pilots refuse to fly with gun loons onboard



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 1st 04, 03:08 PM
Scout
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Bill Funk" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 10:37:33 -0700, "Kevin McCue"
wrote:

Wanna bet your life that they wouldn't miss? I wouldn't. I'd rather

deal
with the terrorist.
Since the Dept. of Homeland Insecurity seems to think that the
terrorist are likely trained ATP's how will the Air Marshal stop them

when
they are locked behind that now reinforced, bullet proof cockpit door?


The only way a terrorist could get behind that locked, bullet proof
door is for someone to open it.
The British pliots (or rather, their union) seem to think that having
the pilots open that door is a really good idea.


Right, which is why it was managed to be opened by a couple of people armed
with nothing more than a drink cart.



  #2  
Old January 1st 04, 05:05 PM
Bogart
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 15:08:13 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:


"Bill Funk" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 10:37:33 -0700, "Kevin McCue"
wrote:

Wanna bet your life that they wouldn't miss? I wouldn't. I'd rather

deal
with the terrorist.
Since the Dept. of Homeland Insecurity seems to think that the
terrorist are likely trained ATP's how will the Air Marshal stop them

when
they are locked behind that now reinforced, bullet proof cockpit door?


The only way a terrorist could get behind that locked, bullet proof
door is for someone to open it.
The British pliots (or rather, their union) seem to think that having
the pilots open that door is a really good idea.


Right, which is why it was managed to be opened by a couple of people armed
with nothing more than a drink cart.


How did they open a locked bullet proof door with a drink cart?
  #3  
Old January 1st 04, 06:04 PM
Scout
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


" Bogart " wrote in message
s.com...
On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 15:08:13 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:


"Bill Funk" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 10:37:33 -0700, "Kevin McCue"
wrote:

Wanna bet your life that they wouldn't miss? I wouldn't. I'd

rather
deal
with the terrorist.
Since the Dept. of Homeland Insecurity seems to think that the
terrorist are likely trained ATP's how will the Air Marshal stop them

when
they are locked behind that now reinforced, bullet proof cockpit door?

The only way a terrorist could get behind that locked, bullet proof
door is for someone to open it.
The British pliots (or rather, their union) seem to think that having
the pilots open that door is a really good idea.


Right, which is why it was managed to be opened by a couple of people

armed
with nothing more than a drink cart.


How did they open a locked bullet proof door with a drink cart?


They rammed the door with it.



  #4  
Old January 1st 04, 06:36 PM
Colin Kingsbury
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Reminds me of an old Patton quote- "Fixed defenses are tributes to the
stupidity of mankind."

Guns or no, the best defense against hijackers will be the pax themselves-
of course if the hijackers manage to get some weapons on board first then
more pax will be killed than necessary, but I don't see terrorists being
able to do anything more than down the plane. 9/11 succeded only because of
its novelty.

-cwk.

"Scout" wrote in message
. ..
The only way a terrorist could get behind that locked, bullet proof
door is for someone to open it.


Right, which is why it was managed to be opened by a couple of people

armed
with nothing more than a drink cart.





  #5  
Old January 1st 04, 08:46 PM
Ed Stasiak
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bill Funk wrote

The only way a terrorist could get behind that locked,
bullet proof door is for someone to open it.
The British pliots (or rather, their union) seem to think
that having the pilots open that door is a really good idea.


Wouldn't the pilots have to open the door at some point
to go to the bathroom or for the stewardess to serve them
food and coffee?
  #6  
Old January 2nd 04, 12:49 AM
AH#49
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ed Stasiak wrote:

Bill Funk wrote

The only way a terrorist could get behind that locked,
bullet proof door is for someone to open it.
The British pliots (or rather, their union) seem to think
that having the pilots open that door is a really good idea.


Wouldn't the pilots have to open the door at some point
to go to the bathroom or for the stewardess to serve them
food and coffee?


Why not?
Your point?
With SIMPLE safe guards, that is a SUPER simple and easy task to
accomplish without risk to passengers or the flight crew, let alone any
target below even IF that system was breached.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) Rich Stowell Aerobatics 28 January 2nd 09 02:26 PM
Dover short pilots since vaccine order Roman Bystrianyk Naval Aviation 0 December 29th 04 12:47 AM
[OT] USA - TSA Obstructing Armed Pilots? No Spam! Military Aviation 120 January 27th 04 10:19 AM
[OT] USA - TSA Obstructing Armed Pilots? No Spam! General Aviation 3 December 23rd 03 08:53 PM
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) Rich Stowell Piloting 25 September 11th 03 01:27 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Đ2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.