[OT] USA - TSA Obstructing Armed Pilots?

"Paul J. Adam" wrote...

I'm not particularly pro- or anti- armed pilots. There are significant
administrative issues (how do you secure the weapons between flights?

There have been several proposals addressed to the TSA, but they seem to have
adopted the WORST one of all (probably in their apparent continuing effort to
minimize the number of pilots who will be armed). They have adopted a method
PROHIBITED for Air Marshals and other Law Enforcement Officers (e.g., prisoner
escorts) aboard airplanes!


my main concern is that other more
effective measures for protecting the pilots and their aircraft get
ignored as too difficult or expensive, because "the pilots can be armed
so now there's no problem".

Those other measures, "more effective" or not, will continue to be "too
difficult or expensive" regardless of other measures adopted. The miniscule
number of armed pilots PLUS Air Marshals CANNOT make up for ANY other measures!
However, when the lives of several hundred passengers are at stake, "defense in
depth" is a reasonable measure.


I don't see it as a hugely effective measure - you can't shoot well over
your shoulder while strapped into a seat

That's why specific training has been developed... Besides, the range is VERY
short, so long-range accuracy is NOT a factor in that case.

"B2431" wrote...

Even with a
cylinder bore in a 18 1/2" or sawed-off (highly illegal in most cases) barrel,

Under federal law the minimum barrel lengths are 18" for shotguns and 16" for
rifles. I know of no state law that furthe restricts length.

That's why I tried to differentiate between a 18 1/2" (legal) and a sawed-off
(illegal) barrel. The OP mentioned "sawed-off," which would normally be illegal
in any case (don't know if they are legal under Class III regs).

"B2431" wrote...

Bear in mind most people use muzzle velocity as opposed to impact velocity.

Though muzzle velocity/energy is appropriate in this discussion because of the
close ranges, hunters definitely consider down-range velocity (and accompanying
bullet drop) and energy!


Winter clothes tend to clog the cavity of a hollow point and reduce or
eliminate expansion. High velocity solid bullets may go through the target and
hit something not intended. The latter is why Mag-Safe, Glaser Safety Slugs
etc
are made.

That is one reason I answered the post regarding shotguns. At very close range,
the "column of shot" may closely resemble a "Safety Slug" in terminal
ballistics, especially with small shot.

In article Jb0Hb.141848$8y1.422519@attbi_s52,
"John R Weiss" wrote:

That's why I tried to differentiate between a 18 1/2" (legal) and a
sawed-off (illegal) barrel. The OP mentioned "sawed-off," which
would normally be illegal in any case (don't know if they are legal
under Class III regs).

That's a funny thing...

It's generally illegal to cut a normal shotgun down to a short barrel
length, but it *is* legal to manufacture a short-barreled shotgun and
sell it as an "All Other Weapons" Class III firearm, with a $5 tax
stamp. There are some *very* neat little three-shot 12 gauge shotguns
with 9" barrels out there (with a folding handle on the slide to help
control the little monster). Based on the Mossberg action. I've seen
them go for as little as $250 used on some gun auction sites.

They don't have as much punch as a regular 12 gauge, but hey, if you
have a Class III license, it's practically an impulse buy... and a
*serious* short-range low collateral-damage weapon.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

From: Chad Irby
Date: 12/26/2003 2:57 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

In article Jb0Hb.141848$8y1.422519@attbi_s52,
"John R Weiss" wrote:

That's why I tried to differentiate between a 18 1/2" (legal) and a
sawed-off (illegal) barrel. The OP mentioned "sawed-off," which
would normally be illegal in any case (don't know if they are legal
under Class III regs).

That's a funny thing...

It's generally illegal to cut a normal shotgun down to a short barrel
length, but it *is* legal to manufacture a short-barreled shotgun and
sell it as an "All Other Weapons" Class III firearm, with a $5 tax
stamp. There are some *very* neat little three-shot 12 gauge shotguns
with 9" barrels out there (with a folding handle on the slide to help
control the little monster). Based on the Mossberg action. I've seen
them go for as little as $250 used on some gun auction sites.

They don't have as much punch as a regular 12 gauge, but hey, if you
have a Class III license, it's practically an impulse buy... and a
*serious* short-range low collateral-damage weapon.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com


One of the problems with Title 2 weapons is transporting them across state
lines. You need prior approval from the feds and several states don't allow
them.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Paul J. Adam wrote:
I'm not particularly pro- or anti- armed pilots. There are significant
administrative issues (how do you secure the weapons between flights?
What happens when you fly to a country that doesn't recognise personal
carry?) but answers could be found: my main concern is that other more
effective measures for protecting the pilots and their aircraft get
ignored as too difficult or expensive, because "the pilots can be armed
so now there's no problem".

I agree we should not consider any individual tactic as sufficient in
this case.

I suggest we need to implement defense in depth - which means placing an
entire series of obstacles, or defenses, between the terrorist and their
success. Too much reliance on any single defense will result in the
defense being neutralized or gone around. An entire series of defenses,
with new defenses being added as older ones are known to be compromised,
will result in making the terrorists task much, much more difficult -
which is about as good as you can hope for.

The final defense is, in this case, an armed pilot. Although it sounds
like the TSA is working to not let that happen as much as perhaps it
should. Are there questions and issues, and perhaps even problems? Yes,
as there are with any attempt. But as a passenger, I would feel safer
flying if I felt there was a higher chance of the cockpit crew being
armed than if I thought there was a smaller chance of it.

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.

In message O10Hb.485370$275.1381929@attbi_s53, John R Weiss
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote...
I don't see it as a hugely effective measure - you can't shoot well over
your shoulder while strapped into a seat

That's why specific training has been developed... Besides, the range is VERY
short, so long-range accuracy is NOT a factor in that case.

Odds are you'll be outnumbered if the Bad Guys have breached security
(if they can get one weapon aboard, why not a dozen or more?)

The idea that "armed pilots" are more than a backstop to other security
measures is romantic but foolish - pilots have much more important tasks
than threatening passengers, and of course Bad Guys would _never_ make
their move during times of high workload.

If the Bad Guys can get guns or knives aboard, they can get stun
grenades, CS grenades, cattle prods and assorted other means to subdue
two men strapped into seats. "Not Letting Them Throw Things Into
Cockpits Or Open Cockpit Doors" might be more important - but who cares
about expensive modifications to cockpit security, when the pilots could
be armed and will be asked and expected to handle every threat? (And can
be blamed for any failure?)

Maybe I'm a cynic.

--
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

"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.