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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote in message . com... Cockpit defense should begin with a good screening of passengers. Skip the old ladies and the blonde hair/blue eyed crowd. Right now the enemy is of Middle Eastern descent. Concentrate efforts on those who fit the profile; forget any crap about what's fair and what's not. We're not playing football here. Which of course means you miss people like the Americans, Aussies and Brits who joined Al Qaeda not to mention the Japanese who attacked Lod airport and werent picked up because they obviously werent Palestinians Then there are the blond haired blue eyed terrorists of the various German groups like Bader Meinhoff and the RAF. Ignoring whole races is a BAD idea. Keith |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
"Juvat" wrote...
Guess you're not aware that before 9/11 the blade on a crash ax was pretty damn dull. THAT was the point (so to speak). Not a problem. After all, you don't really want to CUT anything with it -- you want to SMASH something (i.e., the hijacker's skull) with it. Sharp doesn't matter when the point is well under a square inch, and you attain significant velocity with it... |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
"John R Weiss" wrote in message news:JPjJb.43203$xX.154941@attbi_s02... "Juvat" wrote... Guess you're not aware that before 9/11 the blade on a crash ax was pretty damn dull. THAT was the point (so to speak). Not a problem. After all, you don't really want to CUT anything with it -- you want to SMASH something (i.e., the hijacker's skull) with it. Sharp doesn't matter when the point is well under a square inch, and you attain significant velocity with it... Now all we need is a pilot's course on pushing the ax, as opposed to swinging it. |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
In message , Chad Irby
writes In article , "Paul J. Adam" wrote: I'm not opposed to pilots having the option of going armed as part of the security system: I _am_ opposed to flight crew armament being the entire security system. Good point, but "being the entire security system" would entail stopping airport gate security, stopping background checks on airline empolyees, and tying all passengers into their seats so nobody could interfere with possible hijackers. So allowing pilots to be armed will completely and totally fix all airline security issues? I think the contribution may be overstated, but it may also save a situation one day. There are issues to deal with but it's not a showstopper. But "better doors for the cockpit" strike me as a much more important issue, regardless of the armament of the pilots: having failed to keep the threat off the aircraft, it's better to keep the Bad Guys out of the cockpit with the option of shooting the ones who get in, than rely only on shooting them. And a better door means that many attempts won't get in at all, with only those succeeding discovering the armament, skill and determination of the flight crew (whose main job, after all, is to Fly The Damn Aircraft) Trouble is, that's more expensive and difficult to implement, even if it's also more useful. You see, the old terrorist plan included an assumption that nobody in the plane would do anything out of fear for their own lives, while the new plan has to assume that everyone on the plane will go absolutely bat**** if someone tries to hijack the plane. You noticed that too? Screw "sit still, keep your eyes down and wait until you're rescued or ransomed" now... but what's that got to do with the pilots having a handgun or two? For that matter, why can't _I_ have a handgun on an airliner? I've got the demonstrated skills and experience, and clearance out of the ears. -- When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite. W S Churchill Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote: In message , Chad Irby writes In article , "Paul J. Adam" wrote: I'm not opposed to pilots having the option of going armed as part of the security system: I _am_ opposed to flight crew armament being the entire security system. Good point, but "being the entire security system" would entail stopping airport gate security, stopping background checks on airline empolyees, and tying all passengers into their seats so nobody could interfere with possible hijackers. So allowing pilots to be armed will completely and totally fix all airline security issues? Not only "no," but "nobody has claimed that." For that matter, why can't _I_ have a handgun on an airliner? I've got the demonstrated skills and experience, and clearance out of the ears. That's something I've been wondering about, myself. A minor scenario: If a law officer (or qualified agent of the government) wants to fly on a plane, not only do they get to carry their guns, they get a discount. A *big* discount. Maybe free. With perks. All they have to do is show up sober, not drink on the flight, and be ready to shoot someone in the right situation. A minor training course on shooting people in planes (along with How to Recognize a Terrorist), and you get a little card that makes all of this go smoothly. Much cheaper than trying to hire a few thousand Air Marshalls to try and cover all flights. Sure, you won't get 100% coverage, but you'd certainly get a lot with that cheap/free ticket. -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in
: In message , Chad Irby writes In article , "Paul J. Adam" wrote: I'm not opposed to pilots having the option of going armed as part of the security system: I _am_ opposed to flight crew armament being the entire security system. Good point, but "being the entire security system" would entail stopping airport gate security, stopping background checks on airline empolyees, and tying all passengers into their seats so nobody could interfere with possible hijackers. So allowing pilots to be armed will completely and totally fix all airline security issues? No,but it can be implemented virtually immediately,and at little cost,no added personnel,and greatly complicates a hijack attempt. I think the contribution may be overstated, but it may also save a situation one day. There are issues to deal with but it's not a showstopper. But "better doors for the cockpit" strike me as a much more important issue, regardless of the armament of the pilots: having failed to keep the threat off the aircraft, it's better to keep the Bad Guys out of the cockpit with the option of shooting the ones who get in, than rely only on shooting them. And a better door means that many attempts won't get in at all, with only those succeeding discovering the armament, skill and determination of the flight crew (whose main job, after all, is to Fly The Damn Aircraft) Well,one "better door" already has been breached,according to one pilot who wrote into AvLeak.(beverage cart 'test' by cabin cleaners) Trouble is, that's more expensive and difficult to implement, even if it's also more useful. I agree it's necessary to implement,but as you said,it takes time to implement,and costs quite a bit. For that matter, why can't _I_ have a handgun on an airliner? I've got the demonstrated skills and experience, and clearance out of the ears. A lot of people are asking that question. -- Jim Yanik jyanik-at-kua.net |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
Chad Irby wrote:
A minor scenario: If a law officer (or qualified agent of the government) wants to fly on a plane, not only do they get to carry their guns, they get a discount. A *big* discount. Maybe free. With perks. All they have to do is show up sober, not drink on the flight, and be ready to shoot someone in the right situation. A minor training course on shooting people in planes (along with How to Recognize a Terrorist), and you get a little card that makes all of this go smoothly. Much cheaper than trying to hire a few thousand Air Marshalls to try and cover all flights. Sure, you won't get 100% coverage, but you'd certainly get a lot with that cheap/free ticket. Hell of a good idea...one other stipulation, they gotta fly in civilian clothes, that way nobody can tell who is who. Then advertise the opportunity all over the place, both to get volunteers and to thwart would-be terrorists. Sounds like cheap insurance for the airlines to me. Get your patent application in there Chad. -- -Gord. |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
In message , Chad Irby
writes In article , "Paul J. Adam" wrote: So allowing pilots to be armed will completely and totally fix all airline security issues? Not only "no," but "nobody has claimed that." "Not arming pilots" has been claimed to condemn thousands of innocents to agonised fiery deaths; while giving them handguns is claimed to guarantee safety. After all, reinforced doors can be broken down, security bypassed, et cetera, but the idea that a handgun in the cockpit might fail to stop 100% of hijack attempts is purest heresy... If the Bad Guys are able to overwhelm the passengers (who these days are a lot less likely to believe that sitting still and quiet while avoiding eye contact will help save their lives) sufficient to break into the cockpit they've got aboard with numbers, organisation and weapons: while the flight crew are limited in numbers, stuck in a small and crowded space, and busy with the key job of Flying The Damn Plane: while George may handle routine tasks, how well does the autopilot cope with the cockpit becoming a warzone and who recovers the aircraft afterwards? I'd rather keep the Bad Guys off the aircraft, have them board unarmed if they board at all, make them face a solid and tough barrier if they _do_ get to the door (with a planeful of frightened passengers behind them, aware that if the hijack succeeds they'll be payload in an oversized Kamikaze), and then have them worry whether the first man struggling through that door will get a crash axe in the head or a chestful of JHP bullets; rather than use "the pilot might be armed" to justify skimping on the other measures. Trouble is, improving ground security and keeping it improved costs money (and time and hassle for passengers). Restricting cockpit access costs money. Saying to pilots "If you've got a handgun, you can carry it" is extremely cheap. And the airline business isn't exactly a high-profit business at the moment; carriers who can find corners to cut, will eagerly do so. I'm not opposed to arming pilots; I'm arguing that the assumption should be they will be unarmed (because many will be, regardless) and that it's a bonus rather than a dependable layer. For that matter, why can't _I_ have a handgun on an airliner? I've got the demonstrated skills and experience, and clearance out of the ears. That's something I've been wondering about, myself. I've got the excuse that I had to hand mine in back in 1997... though I'm willing to be issued one and sign for it as necessary. A minor scenario: If a law officer (or qualified agent of the government) I might qualify for that wants to fly on a plane, not only do they get to carry their guns, they get a discount. A *big* discount. Maybe free. With perks. Not only would _I_ like that, but my management would _love_ it if they could get us analysts cheap/free air travel. I've had assorted convolutions on overseas visits (when I went to the Canadian Maritime Warfare Centre, I left on Saturday rather than Sunday because paying me and the hotel for the extra day was cheaper, and I was flying economy class[1]) All they have to do is show up sober, not drink on the flight, and be ready to shoot someone in the right situation. A minor training course on shooting people in planes (along with How to Recognize a Terrorist), and you get a little card that makes all of this go smoothly. We might quibble on how much a "minor training course" requires, but probably not by too much. Congratulations, Mr Irby, for once we seem to be agreeing with each other! Now stop this deviant behaviour at once and go back to arguing with everything I say [1] I'm apparently entitled to fly business class wherever I go. However, with a finite travel budget, them as is willing to travel cheaper are much more likely to get their travel requests approved. -- When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite. W S Churchill Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote: while giving them handguns is claimed to guarantee safety. Only by you. And that's the thing. While other folks are saying things like "it would help," or "it would give another line of defense," you're reading those lines as "WE GUARANTEE safety," and arguing from that point. Come back when you're ready to stop these silly strawman attempts. -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote: Now stop this deviant behaviour at once and go back to arguing with everything I say See other post. -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |
Bush Pilots Fly-In. South Africa. | Bush Air | Home Built | 0 | May 25th 04 06:18 AM |
Joint German-Israeli airforce excersie (Israeli airforce beats German pilots) | Quant | Military Aviation | 8 | September 25th 03 05:41 PM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |
Israeli Air Force to lose Middle East Air Superiority Capability to the Saudis in the near future | Jack White | Military Aviation | 71 | September 21st 03 02:58 PM |