[OT] USA - TSA Obstructing Armed Pilots?

In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in
nk.net:




I would suggest, in the event of an attempted hijacking, the days of
the passengers sitting passively by, have long gone by !!! There is
no alternative than to take some kind of action, regardless.

BMC
From what I'm hearing in the airline pilot community, this is the
current
thinking out there. Much concentration is going into a focus on large
long range cargo flights because of exactly this scenario.
I can not envision a situation after 9-11 where the pax just sit there
and allow the aircraft to be taken by people with anything less than
guns. The current thinking seems to be that airport security, as bad
as it is, will catch the guns and explosives, leaving nothing but
smuggled hand weapons like the ones used before as on board options
for the hijackers. I sure hope this is right! You never know about
these things. They do a model on every conceivable scenario; then it;s
the one they missed that is executed. I'm also hearing that it will be
an on course target rather than an off course target that's chosen,
since a transponder hit by center or any course deviation from filed
past a specific parameter will trigger a fighter rolling off the alert
pads. Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt




Well,to date,I've read about two separate persons bringing handguns aboard
commercial flights undetected,and one incident of a Federally licensed
gov't employee leaving their loaded handgun on their seat when they
deplaned(discovered by another honest passenger).
Then there was the guy who air-freighted himself cross-country.(that's a
doozy!)

And cargo flights will not have the passengers to fight off a hijack
attempt.


But people think that having armed pilots is too big a hazard to risk.
They'll trust -anything- except that.


The flight deck crews DO have a weapon -- the fire axe. I know a number
of captains who would be willing to give a splitting headache to the
first hijacker attempting to come through the door.

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news
In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in
nk.net:




I would suggest, in the event of an attempted hijacking, the days of
the passengers sitting passively by, have long gone by !!! There is
no alternative than to take some kind of action, regardless.

BMC
From what I'm hearing in the airline pilot community, this is the
current
thinking out there. Much concentration is going into a focus on large
long range cargo flights because of exactly this scenario.
I can not envision a situation after 9-11 where the pax just sit there
and allow the aircraft to be taken by people with anything less than
guns. The current thinking seems to be that airport security, as bad
as it is, will catch the guns and explosives, leaving nothing but
smuggled hand weapons like the ones used before as on board options
for the hijackers. I sure hope this is right! You never know about
these things. They do a model on every conceivable scenario; then it;s
the one they missed that is executed. I'm also hearing that it will be
an on course target rather than an off course target that's chosen,
since a transponder hit by center or any course deviation from filed
past a specific parameter will trigger a fighter rolling off the alert
pads. Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt




Well,to date,I've read about two separate persons bringing handguns
aboard
commercial flights undetected,and one incident of a Federally licensed
gov't employee leaving their loaded handgun on their seat when they
deplaned(discovered by another honest passenger).
Then there was the guy who air-freighted himself cross-country.(that's a
doozy!)

And cargo flights will not have the passengers to fight off a hijack
attempt.


But people think that having armed pilots is too big a hazard to risk.
They'll trust -anything- except that.


The flight deck crews DO have a weapon -- the fire axe. I know a number
of captains who would be willing to give a splitting headache to the
first hijacker attempting to come through the door.

Hi Orval;

Yes, it's going to be interesting watching how all this goes down when the
dust settles. The gun lobby is out in force; the pilots are split, although
many of those I know personally are in favor of guns in the cockpit....a few
have issues with it. There's no doubt that having the guns changes the
hijack model for the bad guys.
Many of the pilots I'm talking to every day tell me that they feel FedEx and
UPS are prime targets. Many agree that the pax will never allow a takeover
again, but will fight back.
It's true that airport security leaves a lot to be desired, but it's in
place and working anyway, and as such is a huge detriment. I'm still worried
about the inbound overseas flights with prime targets beneath their flight
plans. This could end up being a real problem.
The bottom line I'm getting is an overall feeling that things are being
done, but that there are holes in the dyke that are leaving everybody with
an uneasy feeling, but with the odds in our favor.
This terrorist crap is always going to be a crap shoot! I don't think we'll
ever be 100% safe as long as these guys are out there and in operation. The
one outstanding factor that has to be addressed is that there are simply too
many targets and too little resources to protect them. The random checks
we're doing now are a detriment for sure, but something could slip through,
and if we get nailed again, all hell is going to break loose in the world.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

From: "Dudley Henriques"

The bottom line I'm getting is an overall feeling that things are being
done, but that there are holes in the dyke that are leaving everybody with
an uneasy feeling,

Un, a dike is a dam and a dyke...um....well g

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "Dudley Henriques"

The bottom line I'm getting is an overall feeling that things are being
done, but that there are holes in the dyke that are leaving everybody
with
an uneasy feeling,

Un, a dike is a dam and a dyke...um....well g

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Well,to be technically correct,,,,,,,,a dyke has 9 holes. If the dyke on a
dam sees the dam has a big hole in the dike, the dyke could say damn this
dike,be frightened and jump off, getting a sole caught in the hole, and fall
on a spike, thereby putting a hole in the dyke!
:-))))
D

I saw on CNN online today that UK is going to have armed Sky Marshals on
British flights in the US,beginning with their international flights.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

In article k.net,
"Dudley Henriques" wrote:

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news
In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in
nk.net:

.............
Well,to date,I've read about two separate persons bringing handguns
aboard
commercial flights undetected,and one incident of a Federally licensed
gov't employee leaving their loaded handgun on their seat when they
deplaned(discovered by another honest passenger).
Then there was the guy who air-freighted himself cross-country.(that's a
doozy!)

And cargo flights will not have the passengers to fight off a hijack
attempt.


But people think that having armed pilots is too big a hazard to risk.
They'll trust -anything- except that.


The flight deck crews DO have a weapon -- the fire axe. I know a number
of captains who would be willing to give a splitting headache to the
first hijacker attempting to come through the door.

Hi Orval;

Yes, it's going to be interesting watching how all this goes down when the
dust settles. The gun lobby is out in force; the pilots are split, although
many of those I know personally are in favor of guns in the cockpit....a few
have issues with it. There's no doubt that having the guns changes the
hijack model for the bad guys.
Many of the pilots I'm talking to every day tell me that they feel FedEx and
UPS are prime targets. Many agree that the pax will never allow a takeover
again, but will fight back.
It's true that airport security leaves a lot to be desired, but it's in
place and working anyway, and as such is a huge detriment. I'm still worried
about the inbound overseas flights with prime targets beneath their flight
plans. This could end up being a real problem.
The bottom line I'm getting is an overall feeling that things are being
done, but that there are holes in the dyke that are leaving everybody with
an uneasy feeling, but with the odds in our favor.
This terrorist crap is always going to be a crap shoot! I don't think we'll
ever be 100% safe as long as these guys are out there and in operation. The
one outstanding factor that has to be addressed is that there are simply too
many targets and too little resources to protect them. The random checks
we're doing now are a detriment for sure, but something could slip through,
and if we get nailed again, all hell is going to break loose in the world.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt



Unfortunately, I agree with Dudley. Hijacking an international flight
over the ocean prevents the cellphone remedy (a la UA 93) and prevents
most (except satellite) communications with the ground. Air cargo is
another prime target, as there is usually only the crew to deal with.

It would not surprise me if they were to target a major bowl game full
of spectators (80000 to 120000 people) (shudder).

Did anybody happen to watch the stupid episode of "Threat Matrix," where
the bad guys stole a cargo plane in Africa and painted it up like a
legitimate cargo plane? The wholw scenario fell apart when they didn't
divert both the legit and the bad guy's planes to a safe airport.

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news
Unfortunately, I agree with Dudley. Hijacking an international flight
over the ocean prevents the cellphone remedy (a la UA 93) and prevents
most (except satellite) communications with the ground. Air cargo is
another prime target, as there is usually only the crew to deal with.

Why not use the satcom that is already "data 1" to the cockpit? Soon
automation (seperation) will make those equipments a requirement to get in
and out of Europe and Asia.