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 |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
"Dudley Henriques" wrote:
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. Did I mention the time "Shark XXX" (an F-15) passed in front of me from "left to right" in the Miami area (near the Turkey Point nuke power station). This was just several days following 9/11 and the whole country had gone absolutely berkshire just like it has now. I was flying a Cessna 210 cruising at about 4,000-5,000 ft. The "Let's Roll" scenario Part II ain't good enough. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
|
#74
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
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 |