What having a sky marshal really means

http://www.naked-air.com/03flight.htm

If a sky marshal (or pilot, for that matter) really has to get into a fight
with a terrorist, odds are you are going to lose the airplane. Either the
terrorist will set off a bomb or the aircraft will be so damaged during the
fight that it will crash.

I don't agree. Who said the terrorist had a bomb, and how did he get
it on the airplane? And haven't we just wasted a lot of cyber-ink
proving that the chances of the odd angry shot downing the airplane
are extremely remote?

What I do agree with is this: the next terrorist incident will be
different than the four hijackings on 9/11. We have spent many
millions ensuring there won't be a repetition of 9/11, when it was
extremely unlikely that Osmaa ever expected there would be a
repetition. (More likely, he expected us to spend many millions of
dollars.)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

If a sky marshal (or pilot, for that matter) really has to get into a
fight
with a terrorist, odds are you are going to lose the airplane. Either the
terrorist will set off a bomb or the aircraft will be so damaged during
the
fight that it will crash.

I don't agree. Who said the terrorist had a bomb, and how did he get
it on the airplane? And haven't we just wasted a lot of cyber-ink
proving that the chances of the odd angry shot downing the airplane
are extremely remote?

He's addresing "worst case scenario"...at which time HOW he got in aboard
doesn't matter. (Inside job, magic...)


What I do agree with is this: the next terrorist incident will be
different than the four hijackings on 9/11. We have spent many
millions ensuring there won't be a repetition of 9/11, when it was
extremely unlikely that Osmaa ever expected there would be a
repetition. (More likely, he expected us to spend many millions of
dollars.)


In security work, the best you can hope for is to stop the easiest and more
direct attacks. This point is something the media consistently misses
(whether through sheer ignorance or willful deliberation is not clear).

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...


What I do agree with is this: the next terrorist incident will be
different than the four hijackings on 9/11. We have spent many
millions ensuring there won't be a repetition of 9/11, when it was
extremely unlikely that Osmaa ever expected there would be a
repetition. (More likely, he expected us to spend many millions of
dollars.)


In security work, the best you can hope for is to stop the easiest and
more
direct attacks. This point is something the media consistently misses
(whether through sheer ignorance or willful deliberation is not clear).



The Star Trek approach to prevent commandeering of aircraft is a far more
honest approach than air marshals. "This aircraft will self-destruct in 2
minutes."

Robert Henry wrote:

The Star Trek approach to prevent commandeering of aircraft is a far more
honest approach than air marshals. "This aircraft will self-destruct in 2
minutes."

Presumably, this is on the mind of the pilot flying the fighter that would
be intercepting an airliner yelling 7600.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/...908941801.html
http://msnbc.msn.com/Default.aspx?id=3868332&p1=0
http://washingtontimes.com/metro/200...4905-2340r.htm

- Andrew

Just my opinion, of course, but I think a lot of people don't really
understand how 9-1-1 really changed the playing field, so to speak.

It used to be that if you played nice with a hijacker, he/she would demand
to be flown to some place and that would be that. NOW after 9-1-1,,,
passengers and crew are assuming the worst and won't be threatened by a few
incompetents with box cutters that never were taught to bathe. The people
on those planes in 9-1-1 were assuming the old scenario,,,, play nice and
they'll ask to be flown to Cuba (or whatever) and most of us will be
okay...... NOW we know better,,,, short of (God forbid) one of those
low-lifes using a bomb on an aircraft or a gun,,, the passengers and crew
will take 'em out. 9-1-1,,, at least with a jumbo jet will remain the
singularly unique story from the past. Of course this is not to say that
they won't use trucks, boats, walk into shopping centers with explosives
strapped to their person,, one of those scenarios is sure to happen, next,
unfortunately - but what happened in 9-1-1 won't happen again (i.e. in that
same manner).

Just an aside,,, but if I hear one more reporter writing about how 'clever'
those 9-1-1 terrorists were, I think I'll just toss up my Twinkies. They
were common, slightly less-stupid-than-most thugs ,, who used fear to
control numbers greater than themselves, no different than the nonsense that
takes place on our city buses now and then, when two or three teenagers can
terrorize an entire busload of people.
--
--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil
PP-ASEL

Check out my personal flying adventures complete with pictures and text at:
www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -

On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 14:36:17 -0800 "C J Campbell" wrote:

All those people who worry about explosive decompression, innocent
bystanders getting shot, etc., are missing the point.


Do the sky marshals guard every emergency exit? What would happen if a
terrorist opened and emergency hatch at 36,000 ft? Can they be opened at all
when the plane is at altitude?

The new backscatter xray machines can see pretty much see everything. So
I'd have to suspend disbelief to think your scenario could play out.

Are you saying that you think a gun and/or bomb could be gotten on board
somehow? You scenario seems to rest on that premise.



R. Hubbell




If a sky marshal (or pilot, for that matter) really has to get into a fight
with a terrorist, odds are you are going to lose the airplane. Either the
terrorist will set off a bomb or the aircraft will be so damaged during the
fight that it will crash.

This is still better odds of survival for the passengers and crew than
simply shooting down the hijacked aircraft, which the military will scramble
to do the moment that somebody tries to take over the airplane. The sky
marshal has only a very limited time to regain control. Otherwise the jet
will be shot down, no questions asked. So whatever the marshal can do, at
whatever cost, is better than the alternative.

Either alternative is better than letting a terrorist take control of an
aircraft and fly it into a crowd of people or some valuable object.

I would think that a pilot on a threatened aircraft would gradually reduce
the cabin pressure enough to cause the passengers to pass out. This could be
done in less time than it would probably take to break through the cockpit
door. The bad guys probably would not even notice and might even experience
a moment of euphoria. Once the passenger cabin is properly subdued the
pilots could make their way back and give oxygen to the sky marshals, disarm
the terrorists, and guarantee that control would be maintained after
everybody wakes up while the airplane is descending to land.

This last alternative would still be very dangerous. The terrorists might
still set off a bomb, either before they pass out or after they wake up. The
oxygen masks dropping in the cabin would might tip them off to what was
happening, although the masks sometimes deploy during a hijacking anyway.

--
Christopher J. Campbell
World Famous Flight Instructor
Port Orchard, WA


If you go around beating the Bush, don't complain if you rile the animals.

In article fIFJb.99695$pY.17255@fed1read04,
R. Hubbell wrote:
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 14:36:17 -0800 "C J Campbell"
wrote:

All those people who worry about explosive decompression, innocent
bystanders getting shot, etc., are missing the point.


Do the sky marshals guard every emergency exit? What would happen if a
terrorist opened and emergency hatch at 36,000 ft? Can they be opened at all
when the plane is at altitude?

he may kill himself and some unbelted passenger, but the plane would be
pretty much unharmed... I dont really think it would crash unless
other factor help (such as being just taking off or about to land...)





--
Eduardo Kaftanski |
| Freedom's just another word
http://e.nn.cl | for nothing left to loose.
|

"R. Hubbell" wrote in message
news:fIFJb.99695$pY.17255@fed1read04...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 14:36:17 -0800 "C J Campbell"
wrote:

All those people who worry about explosive decompression, innocent
bystanders getting shot, etc., are missing the point.


Do the sky marshals guard every emergency exit? What would happen if a
terrorist opened and emergency hatch at 36,000 ft? Can they be opened at all
when the plane is at altitude?


To further elaborate on other's replys- the emergency exit is larger than the
opening it fills, so it must be pulled inwards in order to open. With a
conservative 7psi cabin differential and a 36x36" opening, someone would have to
overcome nearly 10,000 lbs of force holding the door shut.

The new backscatter xray machines can see pretty much see everything. So
I'd have to suspend disbelief to think your scenario could play out.

Are you saying that you think a gun and/or bomb could be gotten on board
somehow? You scenario seems to rest on that premise.


The new x-ray machines are great. But they don't have a "gun/bomb/knife" alarm
on them. They still require as screener to watch and pick out the weapons. You
have thousands and thousands of bags being scanned a day, and a screener can go
his or her entire career without seeing ONE weapon. This is a very difficult
task to approach from a vigilance standpoint, and it is NOT inconcievable that a
Bad Guy could sneak something through.

Look at how many people are able to accidently get guns and knives through
security.


R. Hubbell




If a sky marshal (or pilot, for that matter) really has to get into a fight
with a terrorist, odds are you are going to lose the airplane. Either the
terrorist will set off a bomb or the aircraft will be so damaged during the
fight that it will crash.

This is still better odds of survival for the passengers and crew than
simply shooting down the hijacked aircraft, which the military will scramble
to do the moment that somebody tries to take over the airplane. The sky
marshal has only a very limited time to regain control. Otherwise the jet
will be shot down, no questions asked. So whatever the marshal can do, at
whatever cost, is better than the alternative.

Either alternative is better than letting a terrorist take control of an
aircraft and fly it into a crowd of people or some valuable object.

I would think that a pilot on a threatened aircraft would gradually reduce
the cabin pressure enough to cause the passengers to pass out. This could be
done in less time than it would probably take to break through the cockpit
door. The bad guys probably would not even notice and might even experience
a moment of euphoria. Once the passenger cabin is properly subdued the
pilots could make their way back and give oxygen to the sky marshals, disarm
the terrorists, and guarantee that control would be maintained after
everybody wakes up while the airplane is descending to land.

This last alternative would still be very dangerous. The terrorists might
still set off a bomb, either before they pass out or after they wake up. The
oxygen masks dropping in the cabin would might tip them off to what was
happening, although the masks sometimes deploy during a hijacking anyway.

--
Christopher J. Campbell
World Famous Flight Instructor
Port Orchard, WA


If you go around beating the Bush, don't complain if you rile the animals.

No, you cannot open the cabin doors with the plane pressurized...
Shooting holes through the skin of the airframe will not cause explosive
decompression, it will just add some more airbleeds to what is designed to
be there, and to the inevitable leaky door seals, loose rivets, etc... If
you shoot enough holes (lots and lots) then cabin pressure will finally sag
off as the escaping air flow exceeds what the engines can pump into the
plane ...

Even if the whacko(s) succeed in completely blowing out some windows and
decompressing the airplane, they are in the same boat with the passengers,
being tied to an oxygen mask and unable to invade the cockpit - that's a
lose-lose scenario for them...

A weapon getting on board will likely come inside the food cart, be stashed
by a janitor, etc., rather than with a boarding passenger... Secondly, a
single gun/knife, or even a couple, will not take over the aircraft now that
passengers know that letting the whacko(s) get into the cockpit means a sure
death...
Cargo planes are a far more likely target for whackos now than heavily
defended passenger planes...

Denny