[OT] USA - TSA Obstructing Armed Pilots?

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote in message
. com...


Cockpit defense should begin with a good screening of passengers. Skip
the old
ladies and the blonde hair/blue eyed crowd. Right now the enemy is of
Middle
Eastern descent. Concentrate efforts on those who fit the profile; forget
any
crap about what's fair and what's not. We're not playing football here.


Which of course means you miss people like the Americans, Aussies
and Brits who joined Al Qaeda not to mention the Japanese who
attacked Lod airport and werent picked up because they obviously
werent Palestinians

Then there are the blond haired blue eyed terrorists of the various
German groups like Bader Meinhoff and the RAF.

Ignoring whole races is a BAD idea.

Keith

"Juvat" wrote...

Guess you're not aware that before 9/11 the blade on a crash ax was
pretty damn dull. THAT was the point (so to speak).

Not a problem. After all, you don't really want to CUT anything with it -- you
want to SMASH something (i.e., the hijacker's skull) with it. Sharp doesn't
matter when the point is well under a square inch, and you attain significant
velocity with it...

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:JPjJb.43203$xX.154941@attbi_s02...
"Juvat" wrote...

Guess you're not aware that before 9/11 the blade on a crash ax was
pretty damn dull. THAT was the point (so to speak).

Not a problem. After all, you don't really want to CUT anything with
it -- you
want to SMASH something (i.e., the hijacker's skull) with it. Sharp
doesn't
matter when the point is well under a square inch, and you attain
significant
velocity with it...

Now all we need is a pilot's course on pushing the ax, as opposed to
swinging it.

In message , Chad Irby
writes
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
I'm not opposed to pilots having the option of going armed as part of
the security system: I _am_ opposed to flight crew armament being the
entire security system.

Good point, but "being the entire security system" would entail stopping
airport gate security, stopping background checks on airline empolyees,
and tying all passengers into their seats so nobody could interfere with
possible hijackers.

So allowing pilots to be armed will completely and totally fix all
airline security issues?

I think the contribution may be overstated, but it may also save a
situation one day. There are issues to deal with but it's not a
showstopper.

But "better doors for the cockpit" strike me as a much more important
issue, regardless of the armament of the pilots: having failed to keep
the threat off the aircraft, it's better to keep the Bad Guys out of the
cockpit with the option of shooting the ones who get in, than rely only
on shooting them. And a better door means that many attempts won't get
in at all, with only those succeeding discovering the armament, skill
and determination of the flight crew (whose main job, after all, is to
Fly The Damn Aircraft)

Trouble is, that's more expensive and difficult to implement, even if
it's also more useful.

You see, the old terrorist plan included an assumption that nobody in
the plane would do anything out of fear for their own lives, while the
new plan has to assume that everyone on the plane will go absolutely
bat**** if someone tries to hijack the plane.

You noticed that too? Screw "sit still, keep your eyes down and wait
until you're rescued or ransomed" now... but what's that got to do with
the pilots having a handgun or two?

For that matter, why can't _I_ have a handgun on an airliner? I've got
the demonstrated skills and experience, and clearance out of the ears.

--
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

In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

In message , Chad Irby
writes
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
I'm not opposed to pilots having the option of going armed as part of
the security system: I _am_ opposed to flight crew armament being the
entire security system.

Good point, but "being the entire security system" would entail stopping
airport gate security, stopping background checks on airline empolyees,
and tying all passengers into their seats so nobody could interfere with
possible hijackers.

So allowing pilots to be armed will completely and totally fix all
airline security issues?

Not only "no," but "nobody has claimed that."

For that matter, why can't _I_ have a handgun on an airliner? I've got
the demonstrated skills and experience, and clearance out of the ears.

That's something I've been wondering about, myself.

A minor scenario: If a law officer (or qualified agent of the
government) wants to fly on a plane, not only do they get to carry their
guns, they get a discount. A *big* discount. Maybe free. With perks.
All they have to do is show up sober, not drink on the flight, and be
ready to shoot someone in the right situation. A minor training course
on shooting people in planes (along with How to Recognize a Terrorist),
and you get a little card that makes all of this go smoothly.

Much cheaper than trying to hire a few thousand Air Marshalls to try and
cover all flights. Sure, you won't get 100% coverage, but you'd
certainly get a lot with that cheap/free ticket.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in
:

In message , Chad Irby
writes
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
I'm not opposed to pilots having the option of going armed as part of
the security system: I _am_ opposed to flight crew armament being the
entire security system.

Good point, but "being the entire security system" would entail stopping
airport gate security, stopping background checks on airline empolyees,
and tying all passengers into their seats so nobody could interfere with
possible hijackers.

So allowing pilots to be armed will completely and totally fix all
airline security issues?

No,but it can be implemented virtually immediately,and at little cost,no
added personnel,and greatly complicates a hijack attempt.


I think the contribution may be overstated, but it may also save a
situation one day. There are issues to deal with but it's not a
showstopper.

But "better doors for the cockpit" strike me as a much more important
issue, regardless of the armament of the pilots: having failed to keep
the threat off the aircraft, it's better to keep the Bad Guys out of the
cockpit with the option of shooting the ones who get in, than rely only
on shooting them. And a better door means that many attempts won't get
in at all, with only those succeeding discovering the armament, skill
and determination of the flight crew (whose main job, after all, is to
Fly The Damn Aircraft)

Well,one "better door" already has been breached,according to one pilot who
wrote into AvLeak.(beverage cart 'test' by cabin cleaners)

Trouble is, that's more expensive and difficult to implement, even if
it's also more useful.

I agree it's necessary to implement,but as you said,it takes time to
implement,and costs quite a bit.

For that matter, why can't _I_ have a handgun on an airliner? I've got
the demonstrated skills and experience, and clearance out of the ears.


A lot of people are asking that question.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

Chad Irby wrote:


A minor scenario: If a law officer (or qualified agent of the
government) wants to fly on a plane, not only do they get to carry their
guns, they get a discount. A *big* discount. Maybe free. With perks.
All they have to do is show up sober, not drink on the flight, and be
ready to shoot someone in the right situation. A minor training course
on shooting people in planes (along with How to Recognize a Terrorist),
and you get a little card that makes all of this go smoothly.

Much cheaper than trying to hire a few thousand Air Marshalls to try and
cover all flights. Sure, you won't get 100% coverage, but you'd
certainly get a lot with that cheap/free ticket.

Hell of a good idea...one other stipulation, they gotta fly in
civilian clothes, that way nobody can tell who is who. Then
advertise the opportunity all over the place, both to get
volunteers and to thwart would-be terrorists. Sounds like cheap
insurance for the airlines to me. Get your patent application in
there Chad.
--

-Gord.

In message , Chad Irby
writes
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
So allowing pilots to be armed will completely and totally fix all
airline security issues?

Not only "no," but "nobody has claimed that."

"Not arming pilots" has been claimed to condemn thousands of innocents
to agonised fiery deaths; while giving them handguns is claimed to
guarantee safety. After all, reinforced doors can be broken down,
security bypassed, et cetera, but the idea that a handgun in the cockpit
might fail to stop 100% of hijack attempts is purest heresy...

If the Bad Guys are able to overwhelm the passengers (who these days are
a lot less likely to believe that sitting still and quiet while avoiding
eye contact will help save their lives) sufficient to break into the
cockpit they've got aboard with numbers, organisation and weapons: while
the flight crew are limited in numbers, stuck in a small and crowded
space, and busy with the key job of Flying The Damn Plane: while George
may handle routine tasks, how well does the autopilot cope with the
cockpit becoming a warzone and who recovers the aircraft afterwards?


I'd rather keep the Bad Guys off the aircraft, have them board unarmed
if they board at all, make them face a solid and tough barrier if they
_do_ get to the door (with a planeful of frightened passengers behind
them, aware that if the hijack succeeds they'll be payload in an
oversized Kamikaze), and then have them worry whether the first man
struggling through that door will get a crash axe in the head or a
chestful of JHP bullets; rather than use "the pilot might be armed" to
justify skimping on the other measures.


Trouble is, improving ground security and keeping it improved costs
money (and time and hassle for passengers). Restricting cockpit access
costs money. Saying to pilots "If you've got a handgun, you can carry
it" is extremely cheap. And the airline business isn't exactly a
high-profit business at the moment; carriers who can find corners to
cut, will eagerly do so.

I'm not opposed to arming pilots; I'm arguing that the assumption should
be they will be unarmed (because many will be, regardless) and that it's
a bonus rather than a dependable layer.

For that matter, why can't _I_ have a handgun on an airliner? I've got
the demonstrated skills and experience, and clearance out of the ears.

That's something I've been wondering about, myself.

I've got the excuse that I had to hand mine in back in 1997... though
I'm willing to be issued one and sign for it as necessary.

A minor scenario: If a law officer (or qualified agent of the
government)

I might qualify for that

wants to fly on a plane, not only do they get to carry their
guns, they get a discount. A *big* discount. Maybe free. With perks.

Not only would _I_ like that, but my management would _love_ it if they
could get us analysts cheap/free air travel. I've had assorted
convolutions on overseas visits (when I went to the Canadian Maritime
Warfare Centre, I left on Saturday rather than Sunday because paying me
and the hotel for the extra day was cheaper, and I was flying economy
class[1])

All they have to do is show up sober, not drink on the flight, and be
ready to shoot someone in the right situation. A minor training course
on shooting people in planes (along with How to Recognize a Terrorist),
and you get a little card that makes all of this go smoothly.

We might quibble on how much a "minor training course" requires, but
probably not by too much.

Congratulations, Mr Irby, for once we seem to be agreeing with each
other!

Now stop this deviant behaviour at once and go back to arguing with
everything I say




[1] I'm apparently entitled to fly business class wherever I go.
However, with a finite travel budget, them as is willing to travel
cheaper are much more likely to get their travel requests approved.

--
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

In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

while giving them handguns is claimed to
guarantee safety.

Only by you.

And that's the thing. While other folks are saying things like "it
would help," or "it would give another line of defense," you're reading
those lines as "WE GUARANTEE safety," and arguing from that point.

Come back when you're ready to stop these silly strawman attempts.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

Now stop this deviant behaviour at once and go back to arguing with
everything I say

See other post.



--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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