[OT] USA - TSA Obstructing Armed Pilots?

Juvat wrote in
:

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...
Would trip over the dead body of the 1st one thru the doorway.The pilot is
going to draw the gun at the first indication of the door being forced.
And be ready for intruders.

Maybe the FFDO pulls the trigger early when drawing the weapon out of
the holster...

They may have to disengage the safety before that happens.Or if a double
action trigger,the pull(on the first shot) would be long enough that type
of AD would not happen.I doubt they'll have very light trigger pulls.


**** happens.

Those pilots who -choose- to be armed,would learn how to handle and use
their firearms.An accidental discharge would be very unlikely to occur.
Even so,it's still better than the alternatives of the pilots being
murdered,being shot down,or crashed into some building.(the big picture)

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


"standard" ammo;could be FMJ(full metal jacket),not known for stopping
power,or JHP(jacketed hollow point),which expands upon impact.(regarded as
the better choice for personal defense)


People seem to come up with any excuse or farfetched or unlikely scenario
in order to make an argument against armed pilots.Very irrational.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

"John R Weiss" wrote:

"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.

Thank you John, a nice calm reasoned answer among all this
hysterical hyperbole. So then, if they aren't laminated, how are
they deiced?...a high percentage of military a/c use glass/clear
conductive material/glass laminate called NESA. They apply a
current to the conductive material and this keeps the screen
quite warm...it also adds strength in some installations.

--

-Gord.

Jim Yanik wrote:


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.


Jim, you appear to think that pilots are the only people who know
how to operate pistols. Why would that be now?. Could it be that
you've never heard of 'smuggling a gun aboard' or even 'an inside
job'??. My my!...
--

-Gord.

Jim Yanik wrote:



People seem to come up with any excuse or farfetched or unlikely scenario
in order to make an argument against armed pilots.Very irrational.

While you are of just the opposite bent. Why not discuss the
different offerings and try to pick the most effective/safest all
around method?. Nobody doubts your gun knowledge here but you
certainly can appear strident and unreasonable when someone
argues against you.

And please don't say "I do not!", I'm merely telling you how you
come across.
--

-Gord.

"Gord Beaman" ) wrote in
:

Jim Yanik wrote:



People seem to come up with any excuse or farfetched or unlikely
scenario in order to make an argument against armed pilots.Very
irrational.

While you are of just the opposite bent. Why not discuss the
different offerings and try to pick the most effective/safest all
around method?. Nobody doubts your gun knowledge here but you
certainly can appear strident and unreasonable when someone
argues against you.

And please don't say "I do not!", I'm merely telling you how you
come across.
--

-Gord.


I'm advocating the KISS principle.
Rather than spend lots of bucks on methods that can still be bypassed or
breached,armed pilots will be effective and inexpensive,*immediately
applicable*(a BIG positive),and in the long run,safer.
Much of some folks "no-guns" arguments are based more on biases or wrong
information.(IMO,more bias than anything else.)

Cockpit defense need not be rocket science.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

"Gord Beaman" ) wrote in
:

"John R Weiss" wrote:

"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.

Thank you John, a nice calm reasoned answer among all this
hysterical hyperbole. So then, if they aren't laminated, how are
they deiced?...a high percentage of military a/c use glass/clear
conductive material/glass laminate called NESA. They apply a
current to the conductive material and this keeps the screen
quite warm...it also adds strength in some installations.

--

-Gord.

Would aircraft use any plastic films in the laminate,such as automotive
glass uses?

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

"Gord Beaman" ) wrote in
:

Jim Yanik wrote:


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.


Jim, you appear to think that pilots are the only people who know
how to operate pistols. Why would that be now?. Could it be that
you've never heard of 'smuggling a gun aboard' or even 'an inside
job'??. My my!...
--

-Gord.

Sure,guns can be smuggled aboard;I've even posted examples of guns brought
aboard by mistake by people,and by a US Federal official leaving their gun
on their seat and deplaning.But the debate was/is about armed PILOTS,and
comments made about -them- firing forwards.

If another hijacking does occur using guns,it probably -will- be an "inside
job",IMO. But in that case,only an armed pilot will be capable of defending
the cockpit.All the other security methods will have been rendered useless
then.

One other thing;are any "crash axes" available in the passenger
compartment? Or solely in the cockpit? (WRT commercial flights)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Jim Yanik
blurted out:

People seem to come up with any excuse or farfetched or unlikely scenario
in order to make an argument against armed pilots.Very irrational.

Ummm, if you intended that remark for me...you are mistaken.

I remember how farfetched or unlikely a total hydraulic failure in the
DC-10 was... until it happened.

Juvat

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Jim Yanik
blurted out:


One other thing;are any "crash axes" available in the passenger
compartment? Or solely in the cockpit? (WRT commercial flights)

Cockpit only...and ours are very sharp.

Juvat

Jim Yanik wrote:

If another hijacking does occur using guns,it probably -will- be an "inside
job",IMO. But in that case,only an armed pilot will be capable of defending
the cockpit.All the other security methods will have been rendered useless
then.


??
How does a bad guy (even holding a gun) get through a secure
cockpit door?...that's a silly statement Jim.

One other thing;are any "crash axes" available in the passenger
compartment? Or solely in the cockpit? (WRT commercial flights)

In military a/c yes, in civil airliners, I doubt it.
--

-Gord.