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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 02:26 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 |