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
  #4  
Old December 31st 03, 08:49 PM
Bogart
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 19:27:22 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:


" Bogart " wrote in message
ws.com...
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:28:59 +0000, Shaun
wrote:

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:28:34 GMT, Mongo Jones
wrote:

In talk.politics.guns

(Nick Cooper) wrote:

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:44:42 GMT, Mongo Jones
wrote:

In talk.politics.guns Chris Morton wrote:

In article , nick

says...

"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots'

union
called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."

Pizza loving anti-Semite points out that British pilots would rather

fly into
buildings than have armed POLICE on board.

They're as big a bunch of netwits as Jew hater Nick.

We should put the British Airline Pilots' Association on notice that
any flight WITHOUT armed sky marshals on board will be shot down as a
precautionary measure.

And you honestly wonder why the rest of the world has such a low
opinion of America?

And you honestly think we give a **** about some ****-whiskered Brits
who are too ****ing stupid to safeguard their own planes?

You should, Decades of proper airline security has proved stunningly
effective at stopping planes being hijacked


Prior to 9/11 when was the last time a US airliner was hijacked in the
US? And what ultimately stopped the domestic hijacking?


Are you saying that only the US managed to implement proper "airline
security"?


No. I asked prior to 9/11 when was the last time a US airliner was
hijacked in the US? Would you like to take a guess?

Second why exactly should we exclude the most recent example to show that
security was inadequate?


If you know the answer to my first question it relates directly to my
second question, What ultimately stopped domestic hijacking?

Now tie both of these two questions together with the correct answers
which I'm sure Shaun will be providing us, and then see how it relates
to the question of putting SKY MARSHALS on airplanes.



  #5  
Old December 31st 03, 10:24 PM
Morton Davis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


" Bogart " wrote in message
s.com...
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 19:27:22 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:


" Bogart " wrote in message
ws.com...
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:28:59 +0000, Shaun
wrote:

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:28:34 GMT, Mongo Jones
wrote:

In talk.politics.guns

(Nick Cooper) wrote:

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:44:42 GMT, Mongo Jones
wrote:

In talk.politics.guns Chris Morton wrote:

In article ,

nick
says...

"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline

pilots'
union
called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on

board."

Pizza loving anti-Semite points out that British pilots would

rather
fly into
buildings than have armed POLICE on board.

They're as big a bunch of netwits as Jew hater Nick.

We should put the British Airline Pilots' Association on notice

that
any flight WITHOUT armed sky marshals on board will be shot down as

a
precautionary measure.

And you honestly wonder why the rest of the world has such a low
opinion of America?

And you honestly think we give a **** about some ****-whiskered Brits
who are too ****ing stupid to safeguard their own planes?

You should, Decades of proper airline security has proved stunningly
effective at stopping planes being hijacked

Prior to 9/11 when was the last time a US airliner was hijacked in the
US? And what ultimately stopped the domestic hijacking?


Are you saying that only the US managed to implement proper "airline
security"?


No. I asked prior to 9/11 when was the last time a US airliner was
hijacked in the US? Would you like to take a guess?


I know it's been a long time.
"In 15 minutes on Tuesday, the US suffered more hijackings than it had in
the previous 10 years combined."
http://www.suntimes.co.za/2001/09/12/hijacking.asp

Second why exactly should we exclude the most recent example to show that
security was inadequate?


If you know the answer to my first question it relates directly to my
second question, What ultimately stopped domestic hijacking?


It never payed off?

-*MORT*-


  #6  
Old December 31st 03, 10:51 PM
Scout
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


" Bogart " wrote in message
s.com...
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 19:27:22 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:


" Bogart " wrote in message
ws.com...
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:28:59 +0000, Shaun
wrote:

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:28:34 GMT, Mongo Jones
wrote:

In talk.politics.guns

(Nick Cooper) wrote:

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:44:42 GMT, Mongo Jones
wrote:

In talk.politics.guns Chris Morton wrote:

In article ,

nick
says...

"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline

pilots'
union
called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on

board."

Pizza loving anti-Semite points out that British pilots would

rather
fly into
buildings than have armed POLICE on board.

They're as big a bunch of netwits as Jew hater Nick.

We should put the British Airline Pilots' Association on notice

that
any flight WITHOUT armed sky marshals on board will be shot down as

a
precautionary measure.

And you honestly wonder why the rest of the world has such a low
opinion of America?

And you honestly think we give a **** about some ****-whiskered Brits
who are too ****ing stupid to safeguard their own planes?

You should, Decades of proper airline security has proved stunningly
effective at stopping planes being hijacked

Prior to 9/11 when was the last time a US airliner was hijacked in the
US? And what ultimately stopped the domestic hijacking?


Are you saying that only the US managed to implement proper "airline
security"?


No. I asked prior to 9/11 when was the last time a US airliner was
hijacked in the US? Would you like to take a guess?


"No"? Then your question really isn't relevent, since hijacking aren't
limited to US airliners alone.

Second why exactly should we exclude the most recent example to show that
security was inadequate?


If you know the answer to my first question it relates directly to my
second question, What ultimately stopped domestic hijacking?


Nothing. 9/11 stands forth as an example that domestic hijacking was NEVER
stopped.


Now tie both of these two questions together with the correct answers
which I'm sure Shaun will be providing us, and then see how it relates
to the question of putting SKY MARSHALS on airplanes.


Two buildings destroyed, 4 planes with crew and passengers dead, thousands
of lives lost, many more injured.

And a commitment to SHOOT DOWN THE NEXT PLANE THAT IS HIJACKED.

Yea, I can see how that pretty much answers the question of whether we need
sky marshals on planes. We do. Period.


  #7  
Old December 31st 03, 11:01 PM
Dave Whitmarsh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 22:51:54 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:


" Bogart " wrote in message
ws.com...
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 19:27:22 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:


" Bogart " wrote in message
ws.com...
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:28:59 +0000, Shaun
wrote:

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:28:34 GMT, Mongo Jones
wrote:

In talk.politics.guns
(Nick Cooper) wrote:

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:44:42 GMT, Mongo Jones
wrote:

In talk.politics.guns Chris Morton wrote:

In article ,

nick
says...

"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline

pilots'
union
called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on

board."

Pizza loving anti-Semite points out that British pilots would

rather
fly into
buildings than have armed POLICE on board.

They're as big a bunch of netwits as Jew hater Nick.

We should put the British Airline Pilots' Association on notice

that
any flight WITHOUT armed sky marshals on board will be shot down as

a
precautionary measure.

And you honestly wonder why the rest of the world has such a low
opinion of America?

And you honestly think we give a **** about some ****-whiskered Brits
who are too ****ing stupid to safeguard their own planes?

You should, Decades of proper airline security has proved stunningly
effective at stopping planes being hijacked

Prior to 9/11 when was the last time a US airliner was hijacked in the
US? And what ultimately stopped the domestic hijacking?

Are you saying that only the US managed to implement proper "airline
security"?


No. I asked prior to 9/11 when was the last time a US airliner was
hijacked in the US? Would you like to take a guess?


"No"? Then your question really isn't relevent, since hijacking aren't
limited to US airliners alone.

Second why exactly should we exclude the most recent example to show that
security was inadequate?


If you know the answer to my first question it relates directly to my
second question, What ultimately stopped domestic hijacking?


Nothing. 9/11 stands forth as an example that domestic hijacking was NEVER
stopped.


Now tie both of these two questions together with the correct answers
which I'm sure Shaun will be providing us, and then see how it relates
to the question of putting SKY MARSHALS on airplanes.


Two buildings destroyed, 4 planes with crew and passengers dead, thousands
of lives lost, many more injured.

And a commitment to SHOOT DOWN THE NEXT PLANE THAT IS HIJACKED.

Yea, I can see how that pretty much answers the question of whether we need
sky marshals on planes. We do. Period.


Oh look, the inmates are attacking each other.

--
The Wit and Wisdom of Mort Davis:

On American children rummaging through rubbish for food:
"True, ythey gewt the inbrads in Parliment to do it"

His neo-con solution for world peace:
"When Europe ****s itsself again, I suggest we drop nukes on it until no
human life remains."

Displaying that he's yet another lamer with a sticky
Caps Lock key who believes that anyone cares about the
contents of his killfile:
"Keep changing those fake idents, I have plenty more room in the old
killfile, ****TARD."
  #8  
Old January 1st 04, 12:24 AM
Bogart
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 22:51:54 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:


" Bogart " wrote in message
ws.com...
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 19:27:22 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:


" Bogart " wrote in message
ws.com...
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:28:59 +0000, Shaun
wrote:

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:28:34 GMT, Mongo Jones
wrote:

In talk.politics.guns
(Nick Cooper) wrote:

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:44:42 GMT, Mongo Jones
wrote:

In talk.politics.guns Chris Morton wrote:

In article ,

nick
says...

"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline

pilots'
union
called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on

board."

Pizza loving anti-Semite points out that British pilots would

rather
fly into
buildings than have armed POLICE on board.

They're as big a bunch of netwits as Jew hater Nick.

We should put the British Airline Pilots' Association on notice

that
any flight WITHOUT armed sky marshals on board will be shot down as

a
precautionary measure.

And you honestly wonder why the rest of the world has such a low
opinion of America?

And you honestly think we give a **** about some ****-whiskered Brits
who are too ****ing stupid to safeguard their own planes?

You should, Decades of proper airline security has proved stunningly
effective at stopping planes being hijacked

Prior to 9/11 when was the last time a US airliner was hijacked in the
US? And what ultimately stopped the domestic hijacking?

Are you saying that only the US managed to implement proper "airline
security"?


No. I asked prior to 9/11 when was the last time a US airliner was
hijacked in the US? Would you like to take a guess?


"No"? Then your question really isn't relevent, since hijacking aren't
limited to US airliners alone.


Second why exactly should we exclude the most recent example to show that
security was inadequate?


If you know the answer to my first question it relates directly to my
second question, What ultimately stopped domestic hijacking?


Nothing. 9/11 stands forth as an example that domestic hijacking was NEVER
stopped.


Now tie both of these two questions together with the correct answers
which I'm sure Shaun will be providing us, and then see how it relates
to the question of putting SKY MARSHALS on airplanes.


Two buildings destroyed, 4 planes with crew and passengers dead, thousands
of lives lost, many more injured.

And a commitment to SHOOT DOWN THE NEXT PLANE THAT IS HIJACKED.

Yea, I can see how that pretty much answers the question of whether we need
sky marshals on planes. We do. Period.


We do not need Sky Marshals on domestic airliners. Prior to 9/11 the
mindset on hijacked planes was for the passengers to just sit, be
passive and cooperate, and eventually the plane will go to Cuba or
wherever and eventually they'll be released safely and flown home.
After 9/11 passengers realized they were going on a suicide ride and
that realization caused them to adjust both their behavior and their
tactics. You will no longer see a group of passengers sit back and
meekly accept their fate when they realize they are going to die no
matter what action they take. The new mindset is, if faced with this
situation you must either fight for control of the aircraft otherwise
you will be doomed to go down with the plane anyway. So you might as
well take the hijackers with you. Since 9/11 we've had at least 3
cases where an airliner was threatened by the behavior of an
individual on board. In all three cases these individuals were either
subdued immediately or killed by the passengers who are no longer
assuming the flight attendant is responsible for taking care of the
problem. In this type of environment the added factor of a Sky
Marshal might actually be a hinderance rather than a help as he could
be mistaken for a hijacker himself.

The plane which went down in PA was a perfect example of the mindset
passengers have once they know they are cannon fodder. Everyone
knows, no hijacker will ever again get into the cockpit from the
passenger cabin. Al Queda knows it too. That's why they are
attempting to bring airline employed licensed pilots onto the cockpit
prior to the flight ever taking off.

That is my opinion. I know yours as misguided as it is.

  #9  
Old January 1st 04, 03:01 PM
Scout
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


" Bogart " wrote in message
s.com...
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 22:51:54 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:


" Bogart " wrote in message
ws.com...
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 19:27:22 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:


" Bogart " wrote in message
ws.com...
On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 12:28:59 +0000, Shaun
wrote:

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003 00:28:34 GMT, Mongo Jones
wrote:

In talk.politics.guns


(Nick Cooper) wrote:

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 20:44:42 GMT, Mongo Jones
wrote:

In talk.politics.guns Chris Morton wrote:

In article ,

nick
says...

"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline

pilots'
union
called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on

board."

Pizza loving anti-Semite points out that British pilots would

rather
fly into
buildings than have armed POLICE on board.

They're as big a bunch of netwits as Jew hater Nick.

We should put the British Airline Pilots' Association on notice

that
any flight WITHOUT armed sky marshals on board will be shot down

as
a
precautionary measure.

And you honestly wonder why the rest of the world has such a low
opinion of America?

And you honestly think we give a **** about some ****-whiskered

Brits
who are too ****ing stupid to safeguard their own planes?

You should, Decades of proper airline security has proved

stunningly
effective at stopping planes being hijacked

Prior to 9/11 when was the last time a US airliner was hijacked in

the
US? And what ultimately stopped the domestic hijacking?

Are you saying that only the US managed to implement proper "airline
security"?

No. I asked prior to 9/11 when was the last time a US airliner was
hijacked in the US? Would you like to take a guess?


"No"? Then your question really isn't relevent, since hijacking aren't
limited to US airliners alone.


Second why exactly should we exclude the most recent example to show

that
security was inadequate?

If you know the answer to my first question it relates directly to my
second question, What ultimately stopped domestic hijacking?


Nothing. 9/11 stands forth as an example that domestic hijacking was

NEVER
stopped.


Now tie both of these two questions together with the correct answers
which I'm sure Shaun will be providing us, and then see how it relates
to the question of putting SKY MARSHALS on airplanes.


Two buildings destroyed, 4 planes with crew and passengers dead,

thousands
of lives lost, many more injured.

And a commitment to SHOOT DOWN THE NEXT PLANE THAT IS HIJACKED.

Yea, I can see how that pretty much answers the question of whether we

need
sky marshals on planes. We do. Period.


We do not need Sky Marshals on domestic airliners. Prior to 9/11 the
mindset on hijacked planes was for the passengers to just sit, be
passive and cooperate, and eventually the plane will go to Cuba or
wherever and eventually they'll be released safely and flown home.
After 9/11 passengers realized they were going on a suicide ride and
that realization caused them to adjust both their behavior and their
tactics. You will no longer see a group of passengers sit back and
meekly accept their fate when they realize they are going to die no
matter what action they take. The new mindset is, if faced with this
situation you must either fight for control of the aircraft otherwise
you will be doomed to go down with the plane anyway. So you might as
well take the hijackers with you.



Yep, and that's what happened on the 4th plane. What I want to know is how
having a sky marshal on board would have made matters worse. Would those
passengers have died twice?

Since 9/11 we've had at least 3
cases where an airliner was threatened by the behavior of an
individual on board. In all three cases these individuals were either
subdued immediately or killed by the passengers who are no longer
assuming the flight attendant is responsible for taking care of the
problem. In this type of environment the added factor of a Sky
Marshal might actually be a hinderance rather than a help as he could
be mistaken for a hijacker himself.


Well, then it would sort of behoove him not to act in a threatening manner
without cause then, wouldn't it.

Odd how we don't get a lot of cases of people jumping undercover officers on
the ground because they might be criminals.

In fact, can you document even ONE case in which an air marshal was attacked
because the passengers thought he was a terrorist, hijacker, or otherwise a
threat to the craft?

Sounds like empty emotional rhetoric to me.




 




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 07:08 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.