[OT] USA - TSA Obstructing Armed Pilots?

"No Spam!" wrote:

We might have stopped another try in Paris, but since apparently at
least one of the people we wanted to talk to (reportedly the one with a
pilot's license) was either warned off or for some other unknown reason
was a no-show means we might not get as much good intel out of the
botched try as we might have.

This seems to argue for less safeguards so as to 'get better
intel' but I believe that the consequence of failing to quash a
hijack attempt is much too dangerous to take chances with
therefore we should do all in our power to prevent any attempt.

I'm also slightly against arming pilots because to endanger these
'Most Essential to Flight" units (pilots) in -any- way isn't
smart...we should put all effort into keeping miscreants out of
the cockpit. I just can't believe that a secure double door
system coupled with an iron clad -procedure- is that hard to
design or that expensive. Just imagine the cost to an airline of
one successful hijack, not just for the hardware, more than
likely that'd be mostly covered by insurance but imagine the cost
in missed revenue due to public apprehension.
--

-Gord.

"Gord Beaman" wrote...

I'm also slightly against arming pilots because to endanger these
'Most Essential to Flight" units (pilots) in -any- way isn't
smart...we should put all effort into keeping miscreants out of
the cockpit.

Good in theory, but not necessarily foolproof in reality.


I just can't believe that a secure double door
system coupled with an iron clad -procedure- is that hard to
design or that expensive.

The double door idea is obviously practicable, or else El Al wouldn't have them.
OTOH, US airlines are so driven by short-term profits and artificially low
ticket prices due to "competition" that none of them is willing to be first to
implement the "safest" measures.

Just as nobody could believe 9-11 could happen even once, nobody is willing to
admit it could happen again. Until then, we'll be saddled with partial
solutions.


Just imagine the cost to an airline of
one successful hijack, not just for the hardware, more than
likely that'd be mostly covered by insurance but imagine the cost
in missed revenue due to public apprehension.

So, if armed pilots thwart only ONE hijacking...

"John R Weiss" wrote:

"Gord Beaman" wrote...

I'm also slightly against arming pilots because to endanger these
'Most Essential to Flight" units (pilots) in -any- way isn't
smart...we should put all effort into keeping miscreants out of
the cockpit.

Good in theory, but not necessarily foolproof in reality.


I just can't believe that a secure double door
system coupled with an iron clad -procedure- is that hard to
design or that expensive.

The double door idea is obviously practicable, or else El Al wouldn't have them.
OTOH, US airlines are so driven by short-term profits and artificially low
ticket prices due to "competition" that none of them is willing to be first to
implement the "safest" measures.

Just as nobody could believe 9-11 could happen even once, nobody is willing to
admit it could happen again. Until then, we'll be saddled with partial
solutions.


Just imagine the cost to an airline of
one successful hijack, not just for the hardware, more than
likely that'd be mostly covered by insurance but imagine the cost
in missed revenue due to public apprehension.

So, if armed pilots thwart only ONE hijacking...

Quite true BUT. I worry about endangering those 'essential to
flight units'. Think of the ever present danger of a loaded
pistol in the comparatively small confines of an airliner cockpit
for years and years, while a steel door (or two) is fairly
innocuous. Also, as a matter of curiosity, what would you expect
to happen if a 9MM or so slug were to go through one of the
windscreens?. Aren't most glass and plastic laminated? (NESA?)

We hit three seagulls just at rotate with a C-119 once and it
caused somewhat of a kerfluffle for awhile. Smashed out the
pilot's windscreen, cockpit was filled with flying pieces of
glass and plexiglass, gull-guts, gull-feathers, gull-****,
gull-bits, gull-drumsticks and other bits and sods.

Also the biggest, most sudden freaking windblast full of dust and
flotsam from years of use. Pilot had a weak stomach and he added
to the fun by barfing into that windblast and distributing his
half digested dinner to us. Cojo did a good job of getting us
around an abbreviated circuit and on the deck...

That friggin a/c stank for a couple of years after that...gull
guts are nasty.
--

-Gord.

"Gord Beaman" ) wrote in
:

"John R Weiss" wrote:

"Gord Beaman" wrote...

I'm also slightly against arming pilots because to endanger these
'Most Essential to Flight" units (pilots) in -any- way isn't
smart...we should put all effort into keeping miscreants out of
the cockpit.

Good in theory, but not necessarily foolproof in reality.


I just can't believe that a secure double door
system coupled with an iron clad -procedure- is that hard to
design or that expensive.

The double door idea is obviously practicable, or else El Al wouldn't
have them. OTOH, US airlines are so driven by short-term profits and
artificially low ticket prices due to "competition" that none of them
is willing to be first to implement the "safest" measures.

Just as nobody could believe 9-11 could happen even once, nobody is
willing to admit it could happen again. Until then, we'll be saddled
with partial solutions.


Just imagine the cost to an airline of
one successful hijack, not just for the hardware, more than
likely that'd be mostly covered by insurance but imagine the cost
in missed revenue due to public apprehension.

So, if armed pilots thwart only ONE hijacking...

Quite true BUT. I worry about endangering those 'essential to
flight units'. Think of the ever present danger of a loaded
pistol in the comparatively small confines of an airliner cockpit
for years and years,

What's years and years got to do with anything? Guns and ammo can be stored
for many years without problems.Any military does it constantly.
Guns don't fire on their own,it takes a PERSON to mishandle one.
And something like 70% of those pilots are ex-military pilots,so they
already have experience with guns.
The "ever-present danger" is only in your own mind.


while a steel door (or two) is fairly
innocuous. Also, as a matter of curiosity, what would you expect
to happen if a 9MM or so slug were to go through one of the
windscreens?. Aren't most glass and plastic laminated? (NESA?)

Why would the pilots be firing FORWARD,when the hijackers would be coming
from REARWARDS?




--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

"Gord Beaman" wrote...

So, if armed pilots thwart only ONE hijacking...

Quite true BUT. I worry about endangering those 'essential to
flight units'. Think of the ever present danger of a loaded
pistol in the comparatively small confines of an airliner cockpit
for years and years, while a steel door (or two) is fairly
innocuous. Also, as a matter of curiosity, what would you expect
to happen if a 9MM or so slug were to go through one of the
windscreens?. Aren't most glass and plastic laminated? (NESA?)

Given the circumstances under which a FFDO's weapon would be fired, I suspect
the damage done by an errant bullet would still be orders of magnitude less than
the alternative.

The program has been well thought out, the training has been given great reviews
by virtually all involved, and the sole "hard" issues remaining are either
administrative in nature or have to do with on-the-ground subjects.

Windscreens are laminated, but I don't know if they all have glass components.
The curved windscreen in the 747-400 appears to be all acrylic. Side windows
are much thinner. A 9 mm hole in a side window would probably be noisy. Given
the angles and other factors present, I can't accurately assess what would
happen to a windscreen with a shot from the inside. I suspect that in many
cases the bullet (especially if a frangible round) would be deflected, and the
windscreen would maintain most of its integrity.

"John R Weiss" wrote in
news:LwoIb.705548$Fm2.608202@attbi_s04:

"Gord Beaman" wrote...

So, if armed pilots thwart only ONE hijacking...

Quite true BUT. I worry about endangering those 'essential to
flight units'. Think of the ever present danger of a loaded
pistol in the comparatively small confines of an airliner cockpit
for years and years, while a steel door (or two) is fairly
innocuous. Also, as a matter of curiosity, what would you expect
to happen if a 9MM or so slug were to go through one of the
windscreens?. Aren't most glass and plastic laminated? (NESA?)

Given the circumstances under which a FFDO's weapon would be fired, I
suspect the damage done by an errant bullet would still be orders of
magnitude less than the alternative.

The program has been well thought out, the training has been given
great reviews by virtually all involved, and the sole "hard" issues
remaining are either administrative in nature or have to do with
on-the-ground subjects.

Windscreens are laminated, but I don't know if they all have glass
components. The curved windscreen in the 747-400 appears to be all
acrylic. Side windows are much thinner. A 9 mm hole in a side window
would probably be noisy. Given the angles and other factors present,
I can't accurately assess what would happen to a windscreen with a
shot from the inside. I suspect that in many cases the bullet
(especially if a frangible round) would be deflected, and the
windscreen would maintain most of its integrity.



Why would pilots be firing TOWARDS the windscreen? The attackers would be
coming from the REAR of the plane.Armed pilots would be firing
REARWARDS.They certainly aren't going to wait until the hijackers are fully
IN the cockpit.

Also,I've read that Sky Marshals use ordinary (premium)JHP ammo,as they
might have to penetrate a seatback or other barrier.
IIRC,the guns are .40 S&W caliber.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Jim Yanik
blurted out:


Why would pilots be firing TOWARDS the windscreen? The attackers would be
coming from the REAR of the plane.Armed pilots would be firing
REARWARDS.They certainly aren't going to wait until the hijackers are fully
IN the cockpit.

Maybe the second or third islamist **** surging into the cockpit...

Maybe the FFDO pulls the trigger early when drawing the weapon out of
the holster...

**** happens.

Also,I've read that Sky Marshals use ordinary (premium)JHP ammo,as they
might have to penetrate a seatback or other barrier.
IIRC,the guns are .40 S&W caliber.

FAMs are using standard ammo, we were dicussing this today on the way
to SFO.

FFDOs are switching from Glocks to H&K .40

Juvat

Juvat wrote in
:

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Jim Yanik
blurted out:


Why would pilots be firing TOWARDS the windscreen? The attackers would
be coming from the REAR of the plane.Armed pilots would be firing
REARWARDS.They certainly aren't going to wait until the hijackers are
fully IN the cockpit.

Maybe the second or third islamist **** surging into the cockpit...
Would trip over the dead body of the 1st one thru the doorway.The pilot is
going to draw the gun at the first indication of the door being forced.
And be ready for intruders.

Maybe the FFDO pulls the trigger early when drawing the weapon out of
the holster...

They may have to disengage the safety before that happens.Or if a double
action trigger,the pull(on the first shot) would be long enough that type
of AD would not happen.I doubt they'll have very light trigger pulls.


**** happens.

Those pilots who -choose- to be armed,would learn how to handle and use
their firearms.An accidental discharge would be very unlikely to occur.
Even so,it's still better than the alternatives of the pilots being
murdered,being shot down,or crashed into some building.(the big picture)

Also,I've read that Sky Marshals use ordinary (premium)JHP ammo,as
they might have to penetrate a seatback or other barrier.
IIRC,the guns are .40 S&W caliber.

FAMs are using standard ammo, we were dicussing this today on the way
to SFO.

FFDOs are switching from Glocks to H&K .40

Juvat


"standard" ammo;could be FMJ(full metal jacket),not known for stopping
power,or JHP(jacketed hollow point),which expands upon impact.(regarded as
the better choice for personal defense)


People seem to come up with any excuse or farfetched or unlikely scenario
in order to make an argument against armed pilots.Very irrational.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

Jim Yanik wrote:


Why would pilots be firing TOWARDS the windscreen? The attackers would be
coming from the REAR of the plane.Armed pilots would be firing
REARWARDS.They certainly aren't going to wait until the hijackers are fully
IN the cockpit.


Jim, you appear to think that pilots are the only people who know
how to operate pistols. Why would that be now?. Could it be that
you've never heard of 'smuggling a gun aboard' or even 'an inside
job'??. My my!...
--

-Gord.

"Gord Beaman" ) wrote in
:

Jim Yanik wrote:


Why would pilots be firing TOWARDS the windscreen? The attackers would
be coming from the REAR of the plane.Armed pilots would be firing
REARWARDS.They certainly aren't going to wait until the hijackers are
fully IN the cockpit.


Jim, you appear to think that pilots are the only people who know
how to operate pistols. Why would that be now?. Could it be that
you've never heard of 'smuggling a gun aboard' or even 'an inside
job'??. My my!...
--

-Gord.

Sure,guns can be smuggled aboard;I've even posted examples of guns brought
aboard by mistake by people,and by a US Federal official leaving their gun
on their seat and deplaning.But the debate was/is about armed PILOTS,and
comments made about -them- firing forwards.

If another hijacking does occur using guns,it probably -will- be an "inside
job",IMO. But in that case,only an armed pilot will be capable of defending
the cockpit.All the other security methods will have been rendered useless
then.

One other thing;are any "crash axes" available in the passenger
compartment? Or solely in the cockpit? (WRT commercial flights)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net