A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

[OT] USA - TSA Obstructing Armed Pilots?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old December 27th 03, 04:44 PM
Mike Marron
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

The idea that "armed pilots" are more than a backstop to other security
measures is romantic but foolish - pilots have much more important tasks
than threatening passengers, and of course Bad Guys would _never_ make
their move during times of high workload.


You bring up some compelling points. I'm curious as to exactly how
an airline pilot, effectively walled-off from intruders by bulletproof
cockpit doors, is able to bring his weapon to bear against the bad
guys. Are there holes or slits in the cockpit doors (ala a Brinks or
Wells Fargo truck) to allow the pilots to poke their gun barrels
through so as to aim with precision while shooting back at the bad
guys?






  #62  
Old December 27th 03, 05:22 PM
Jim Yanik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Gord Beaman" ) wrote in
:

"No Spam!" wrote:

We might have stopped another try in Paris, but since apparently at
least one of the people we wanted to talk to (reportedly the one with a
pilot's license) was either warned off or for some other unknown reason
was a no-show means we might not get as much good intel out of the
botched try as we might have.


This seems to argue for less safeguards so as to 'get better
intel' but I believe that the consequence of failing to quash a
hijack attempt is much too dangerous to take chances with
therefore we should do all in our power to prevent any attempt.

I'm also slightly against arming pilots because to endanger these
'Most Essential to Flight" units (pilots) in -any- way isn't
smart...


well,if there's any hijack attempt,their lives already ARE in danger.
We learned that on 9-11-01.


we should put all effort into keeping miscreants out of
the cockpit. I just can't believe that a secure double door
system coupled with an iron clad -procedure- is that hard to
design or that expensive. Just imagine the cost to an airline of
one successful hijack, not just for the hardware, more than
likely that'd be mostly covered by insurance but imagine the cost
in missed revenue due to public apprehension.
--

-Gord.



There's no room for a "double door" on many aircraft,and cockpit doors get
opened for food or toilet breaks,or other reasons.And there's still the
chance of an 'inside job',someone who could open the door for hijackers,or
tamper with it.I note that in AvLeak,someone reported a "reinforced"
cockpit door being knocked open with a beverage cart.

And the cost to arm a pilot is minimal,yet very effective,and COULD be
implemented almost immediately,in much less time than to reengineer cockpit
doors.One day's training would suffice,IMO.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net
  #63  
Old December 27th 03, 05:28 PM
Jim Yanik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Gord Beaman" ) wrote in
:

"John R Weiss" wrote:

"Gord Beaman" wrote...

I'm also slightly against arming pilots because to endanger these
'Most Essential to Flight" units (pilots) in -any- way isn't
smart...we should put all effort into keeping miscreants out of
the cockpit.


Good in theory, but not necessarily foolproof in reality.


I just can't believe that a secure double door
system coupled with an iron clad -procedure- is that hard to
design or that expensive.


The double door idea is obviously practicable, or else El Al wouldn't
have them. OTOH, US airlines are so driven by short-term profits and
artificially low ticket prices due to "competition" that none of them
is willing to be first to implement the "safest" measures.

Just as nobody could believe 9-11 could happen even once, nobody is
willing to admit it could happen again. Until then, we'll be saddled
with partial solutions.


Just imagine the cost to an airline of
one successful hijack, not just for the hardware, more than
likely that'd be mostly covered by insurance but imagine the cost
in missed revenue due to public apprehension.


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,


What's years and years got to do with anything? Guns and ammo can be stored
for many years without problems.Any military does it constantly.
Guns don't fire on their own,it takes a PERSON to mishandle one.
And something like 70% of those pilots are ex-military pilots,so they
already have experience with guns.
The "ever-present danger" is only in your own mind.


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?)


Why would the pilots be firing FORWARD,when the hijackers would be coming
from REARWARDS?




--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net
  #64  
Old December 27th 03, 05:32 PM
Dudley Henriques
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
"Gord Beaman" ) wrote in
:

"No Spam!" wrote:

We might have stopped another try in Paris, but since apparently at
least one of the people we wanted to talk to (reportedly the one with a
pilot's license) was either warned off or for some other unknown reason
was a no-show means we might not get as much good intel out of the
botched try as we might have.


This seems to argue for less safeguards so as to 'get better
intel' but I believe that the consequence of failing to quash a
hijack attempt is much too dangerous to take chances with
therefore we should do all in our power to prevent any attempt.

I'm also slightly against arming pilots because to endanger these
'Most Essential to Flight" units (pilots) in -any- way isn't
smart...


well,if there's any hijack attempt,their lives already ARE in danger.
We learned that on 9-11-01.


we should put all effort into keeping miscreants out of
the cockpit. I just can't believe that a secure double door
system coupled with an iron clad -procedure- is that hard to
design or that expensive. Just imagine the cost to an airline of
one successful hijack, not just for the hardware, more than
likely that'd be mostly covered by insurance but imagine the cost
in missed revenue due to public apprehension.
--

-Gord.



There's no room for a "double door" on many aircraft,and cockpit doors get
opened for food or toilet breaks,or other reasons.And there's still the
chance of an 'inside job',someone who could open the door for hijackers,or
tamper with it.I note that in AvLeak,someone reported a "reinforced"
cockpit door being knocked open with a beverage cart.

And the cost to arm a pilot is minimal,yet very effective,and COULD be
implemented almost immediately,in much less time than to reengineer

cockpit
doors.One day's training would suffice,IMO.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net


One factor about this issue that's not instantly apparent in all this
discussion about arming or not arming pilots is the fact that armed pilots
change the hijack model before the fact; in the planning stage!
Anyone contemplating a hijacking would have to factor in to their
operational equation the fact that the pilots are armed. This changes the
whole model for a projected hijacking.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt


  #65  
Old December 27th 03, 05:34 PM
Jim Yanik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Mike Marron wrote in
:

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:


The idea that "armed pilots" are more than a backstop to other security
measures is romantic but foolish - pilots have much more important tasks
than threatening passengers, and of course Bad Guys would _never_ make
their move during times of high workload.


You bring up some compelling points. I'm curious as to exactly how
an airline pilot, effectively walled-off from intruders by bulletproof
cockpit doors, is able to bring his weapon to bear against the bad
guys. Are there holes or slits in the cockpit doors (ala a Brinks or
Wells Fargo truck) to allow the pilots to poke their gun barrels
through so as to aim with precision while shooting back at the bad
guys?



Perhaps the guns are menat to be used *only* if the cockpit door is
breached?? In AvLeak,someone mentioned how cabin cleaners used a beverage
cart to knock a reinforced door off it's hinges.

It's also my understanding that the pilots are NOT to leave the cockpit
with their gun,that it IS only for the event of a breach.Until the door is
breached,the pilots first job is to land the aircraft at the closest field
available.Besides,they probably would be banking and changing pitch to make
it difficult to stand for unseated persons.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net
  #66  
Old December 27th 03, 10:02 PM
Brian Colwell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
"Gord Beaman" ) wrote in
:

"No Spam!" wrote:

We might have stopped another try in Paris, but since apparently at
least one of the people we wanted to talk to (reportedly the one with

a
pilot's license) was either warned off or for some other unknown

reason
was a no-show means we might not get as much good intel out of the
botched try as we might have.

This seems to argue for less safeguards so as to 'get better
intel' but I believe that the consequence of failing to quash a
hijack attempt is much too dangerous to take chances with
therefore we should do all in our power to prevent any attempt.

I'm also slightly against arming pilots because to endanger these
'Most Essential to Flight" units (pilots) in -any- way isn't
smart...


well,if there's any hijack attempt,their lives already ARE in danger.
We learned that on 9-11-01.


we should put all effort into keeping miscreants out of
the cockpit. I just can't believe that a secure double door
system coupled with an iron clad -procedure- is that hard to
design or that expensive. Just imagine the cost to an airline of
one successful hijack, not just for the hardware, more than
likely that'd be mostly covered by insurance but imagine the cost
in missed revenue due to public apprehension.
--

-Gord.



There's no room for a "double door" on many aircraft,and cockpit doors

get
opened for food or toilet breaks,or other reasons.And there's still the
chance of an 'inside job',someone who could open the door for

hijackers,or
tamper with it.I note that in AvLeak,someone reported a "reinforced"
cockpit door being knocked open with a beverage cart.

And the cost to arm a pilot is minimal,yet very effective,and COULD be
implemented almost immediately,in much less time than to reengineer

cockpit
doors.One day's training would suffice,IMO.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net


One factor about this issue that's not instantly apparent in all this
discussion about arming or not arming pilots is the fact that armed pilots
change the hijack model before the fact; in the planning stage!
Anyone contemplating a hijacking would have to factor in to their
operational equation the fact that the pilots are armed. This changes the
whole model for a projected hijacking.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt


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


  #67  
Old December 27th 03, 10:12 PM
Peter Kemp
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On or about Sat, 27 Dec 2003 21:02:32 GMT, "Brian Colwell"
allegedly uttered:

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.


Too right. Short of holding serious firepower, the scenario I envisage
is.......

"Everyone shut up! This is a hijacking! Do what we say and.....oh God
no, please stop it.........aaargh" followed by wet slurpy sounds as he
is kicked into a gooey paste by the passengers. I'd like to think I'd
be one of the first out of my seat going for his kneecaps and balls,
but hopefully I'll never have to find out, and neither will anyone
else.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster
  #68  
Old December 27th 03, 11:25 PM
Dudley Henriques
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Brian Colwell" wrote in message
news:IrmHb.853153$9l5.589270@pd7tw2no...

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
"Gord Beaman" ) wrote in
:

"No Spam!" wrote:

We might have stopped another try in Paris, but since apparently at
least one of the people we wanted to talk to (reportedly the one

with
a
pilot's license) was either warned off or for some other unknown

reason
was a no-show means we might not get as much good intel out of the
botched try as we might have.

This seems to argue for less safeguards so as to 'get better
intel' but I believe that the consequence of failing to quash a
hijack attempt is much too dangerous to take chances with
therefore we should do all in our power to prevent any attempt.

I'm also slightly against arming pilots because to endanger these
'Most Essential to Flight" units (pilots) in -any- way isn't
smart...

well,if there's any hijack attempt,their lives already ARE in danger.
We learned that on 9-11-01.


we should put all effort into keeping miscreants out of
the cockpit. I just can't believe that a secure double door
system coupled with an iron clad -procedure- is that hard to
design or that expensive. Just imagine the cost to an airline of
one successful hijack, not just for the hardware, more than
likely that'd be mostly covered by insurance but imagine the cost
in missed revenue due to public apprehension.
--

-Gord.


There's no room for a "double door" on many aircraft,and cockpit doors

get
opened for food or toilet breaks,or other reasons.And there's still

the
chance of an 'inside job',someone who could open the door for

hijackers,or
tamper with it.I note that in AvLeak,someone reported a "reinforced"
cockpit door being knocked open with a beverage cart.

And the cost to arm a pilot is minimal,yet very effective,and COULD be
implemented almost immediately,in much less time than to reengineer

cockpit
doors.One day's training would suffice,IMO.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net


One factor about this issue that's not instantly apparent in all this
discussion about arming or not arming pilots is the fact that armed

pilots
change the hijack model before the fact; in the planning stage!
Anyone contemplating a hijacking would have to factor in to their
operational equation the fact that the pilots are armed. This changes

the
whole model for a projected hijacking.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt


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


  #69  
Old December 28th 03, 01:03 AM
Jim Yanik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net
  #70  
Old December 28th 03, 05:17 AM
Orval Fairbairn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 03:26 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.