[OT] USA - TSA Obstructing Armed Pilots?

"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

"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.

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

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

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.

"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

"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.

"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.

"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

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