[OT] USA - TSA Obstructing Armed Pilots?

From: Mary Shafer
Date: 12/25/2003 2:16 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 19:15:58 GMT, Mike Marron
wrote:

Just don't forget to issue me one when I board, then. (I've never
fired a handgun, so I'll have a sawed-off shotgun please and thank
you!

Not on my airplane, I hope. Nice tidy little bullets are one thing,
but a handful of shot is another entirely. Pressurization systems are
good, but there is a limit.

Or were you planning on loading those little supposedly-nonlethal bean
bags? I don't think I like that any better.

How about a flammenwerfer if you don't want a handgun?

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer


Mary, you have to think big. All airliners should have built in bombs. If
someone hijacks the airplane destroy it. Potential hijackers will get the hint.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

"Mary Shafer" wrote...

Not on my airplane, I hope. Nice tidy little bullets are one thing,
but a handful of shot is another entirely. Pressurization systems are
good, but there is a limit.

As in most things, "it depends"...

If you are thinking about a 10 or 12 gauge shotgun loaded with #4 buck or larger
in normal loads, you are probably right (though I haven't done or seen any
analysis). With "bird shot" (#7 or 8 lead), though, the trade-off would be the
close-range "column of shot" effect vs lesser penetration. Even with a cylinder
bore in a 18 1/2" or sawed-off (highly illegal in most cases) barrel, the shot
does not disperse significantly until some finite distance from the barrel.
Until then, the shot is effectively a .72 cal (for 12 gauge) slug with muzzle
energy of 2000-3000 ft-lb.

OTOH, a short .410 gauge shotgun will likely have less muzzle energy (650 ft-lb
typical for slugs) than a max .45 Colt (410-840 ft-lb -- using comparative
figures for a multi-purpose [.45 Colt/.410 shotshell] Thompson/Center Contender
handgun) or typical .44 magnum (1100-1600 ft-lb) load, and slightly more than a
..45 auto (350-530 ft-lb). A 16 or 20 gauge shotgun will, obviously, be
somewhere in between (1400-2000 ft-lb).

I suppose I would worry most about a short-range "clean miss" with a 12-gauge
and buckshot -- it would make a BIG hole. Also, I would worry about ANY miss
with ANY firearm -- the potential for injuring innocent passengers is high
(though more acceptable than crashing the airplane and killing everyone).
However, longer-range "misses" with smaller-size shot would be less likely to be
lethal or damage-producing, and may be stopped by a seat back or partition.

OTOOH, I have seen evaluations of shotshells in .357 and .45 Auto caliber in
handgun loads. They are much less effective than any solid bullet load against
clothed bodies.

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "John R
Weiss" blurted out:

OTOH, a short .410 gauge shotgun will likely have less muzzle energy (650 ft-lb
typical for slugs) than a max .45 Colt (410-840 ft-lb -- using comparative
figures for a multi-purpose [.45 Colt/.410 shotshell] Thompson/Center Contender
handgun) or typical .44 magnum (1100-1600 ft-lb) load, and slightly more than a
.45 auto (350-530 ft-lb). A 16 or 20 gauge shotgun will, obviously, be
somewhere in between (1400-2000 ft-lb).

What kind of numbers are you looking at with a H&K USP 40 Compact LEM?

Just curious...and out of pocket for five days.

Juvat

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in
news
In message , Jim Yanik
writes
Ed Rasimus wrote in
m:
My point exactly. Security clearance and arming individuals are
apples and oranges.

A security clearance is a form of TRUST,is it not? It says something
about a person's character.

Would an untrustworthy person be able to obtain a security clearance?

A very few have, and have done a lot of damage as a result. The
clearance routine is good but not perfect.


NO system is perfect.But because we cannot achieve perfection doesn't mean
we should do nothing.

Consider the 34 US states that allow concealed carry;the number of those
people who commit gun crimes or get their permits revoked due to gun misuse
are extremely low,fractions of one percent.They haven't gone mad and shot
up places.Vermont doesn't even require any permit,one can carry if they
wish.

Yet,people worry that pilots,many with former military service,might misuse
their weapons aboard a commercial flight.(but won't fly their plane into a
building)

IMO,they're missing the big picture.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

In message , Ed Rasimus
writes
On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 01:03:54 GMT, Mike Marron
wrote:
Jeez Juvat, *that* really helped. I just had my wife read your
response but I'm afraid your "RELAX.......LOTS OF GUYS WITH
GUNS ON US AIRLINERS RIGHT NOW" failed to set her at ease,
if ya' know what I mean.

Lemme see, your wife is one of those who doesn't like good guys with
guns around her, but ignores the fact that the bad guys with guns will
be there regardless?

Having been through a few passenger screenings for transatlantic flight
recently, how are "bad guys" meant to get aboard with available
firearms? If my belt buckle sets off the alarms then a handgun will do
so. (Please no foolishness about Glocks being 'undetectable', I owned
one and the frame is barium-filled plastic with metal inserts, the slide
solid steel - superb handguns but fully compliant with security
requirement)

Barium filled ?

I own two, and I've never heard anything about Barium.

Can you provide a cite? I'm interested.

Harry Andreas
Engineering Raconteur

From: "John R Weiss"

snip

With "bird shot" (#7 or 8 lead), though, the trade-off would bethe
close-range "column of shot" effect vs lesser penetration. 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.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

From: Juvat

What kind of numbers are you looking at with a H&K USP 40 Compact LEM?

Just curious...and out of pocket for five days.

Juvat

The formula for kinetic energy is

K = ½mv²

where K = kinetic energy, m = mass of the bullet and v = velocity of the
bullet.

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

The actual damage done to a body also takes into account cross sectional area
of the bullet, trype of bullet and inertia.

One thing to consider when choosing bullet types is what the target might be
wearing. 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.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 20:34:30 -0800, Mary Shafer
wrote:

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 23:12:31 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote:

Well, although you may have good reason for what you say, in my
experience, both in the military and in industry, there was never any
problem in the statement that one possessed a security clearance. In
fact, in industry, your company ID badge displayed stars to quickly
identify the level of your clearance. Two stars = secret, three stars
= TS.

NASA stopped doing that a while back. We used colored borders on the
badges, so we all had to get new badges without that information.

NASA may have stopped doing it where you worked but not where I work -
the guidelines aren't followed the same way all across the agency.

I's actually bad security form to identify clearance level via
color-coded badges, because it makes specific people identifiable to
hostile intelligence services. In many cases though the ease of
using color-coded badges overcomes the hassle of doing it in some
other way. Also, it's the first thing people think of when designing
badge systems, i.e. "Hey, why don't we use different colors to
designate access levels?".


And, your access to specific compartmentalized programs (i.e.
"black") was displayed with a letter and number code in an "egg crate"
at the bottom of your badge. It was easy to determine if someone had
access to a program by looking at your badge and theirs--same numbers
and in a cleared location, OK to discuss if they reasonably had "need
to know".

NASA uses lists of people briefed onto programs (i.e. having the need
to know for that program), rather than putting it on the badge. We
used to use badge coding, with a little YF-12 planform indicating
access to Senior Crown, for example. We stopped doing that when we
stopped coding clearance levels. I think we were told to stop.


People who are cleared into compartmentalized systems should be known
to each other. Everybody else should be escorted, or challenged.
There are some places where the badges can only be worn within the
compartment and are never seen by anybody on the outside.

Seriously, there's nothing magic about security clearances. The
security issue is not who has one, but what is accessible after the
fact. There is little to be gained in status by possession of a
clearance and nothing to be added by ascribing some sort of "bad juju"
to the system.

Exactly, although possession of an active security clearance right now
can significantly add to your job prospects.

John Hairell )

In message , Jim Yanik
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in
news
A very few have, and have done a lot of damage as a result. The
clearance routine is good but not perfect.

NO system is perfect.But because we cannot achieve perfection doesn't mean
we should do nothing.

Consider the 34 US states that allow concealed carry;the number of those
people who commit gun crimes or get their permits revoked due to gun misuse
are extremely low,fractions of one percent.They haven't gone mad and shot
up places.Vermont doesn't even require any permit,one can carry if they
wish.

Trouble is, the UK's firearm law is the shape it is because of two mass
homicides by permit-holding gun owners, without regard to the many
law-abiding folk like me who just liked blowing holes in paper with
like-minded people. Doesn't make it right, but that's democracy for you.

Yet,people worry that pilots,many with former military service,might misuse
their weapons aboard a commercial flight.(but won't fly their plane into a
building)

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 don't see it as a hugely effective measure - you can't shoot well over
your shoulder while strapped into a seat - but I'm more worried about
airline pilots being drunk than armed


--
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

"Juvat" wrote...

What kind of numbers are you looking at with a H&K USP 40 Compact LEM?

The .40 S&W has about 400-500 ft-lb muzzle energy.