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 |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
Jim Yanik wrote:
"Gord Beaman" ) wrote in : "John R Weiss" wrote: "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. Thank you John, a nice calm reasoned answer among all this hysterical hyperbole. So then, if they aren't laminated, how are they deiced?...a high percentage of military a/c use glass/clear conductive material/glass laminate called NESA. They apply a current to the conductive material and this keeps the screen quite warm...it also adds strength in some installations. -- -Gord. Would aircraft use any plastic films in the laminate,such as automotive glass uses? I don't know Jim...I do know that some use two sheets of safety glass bonded to some kind of conductive plastic material that they apply electrical current to for deicing. The glass becomes very warm to the touch. It's known as 'NESA windscreens'. -- -Gord. |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
Jim Yanik wrote:
Cockpit defense need not be rocket science. The biggest mistake I see people making in the discussion of cockpit defense is the assumption that any one obstacle will be adequate, combined with a rather rigid assumption of probable conditions. 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. Air marshalls in the cabin should be the second line of defense. I recognize there are nowhere near enough of them now, but it should be a goal. I'm not opposed to police officers and those with concealed carry permits carrying guns in the cabin either. Every one of them has had an extensive background check. We need to mix a few porcupines in with the wolves. We can't afford to all be sheep anymore. The armored cockpit door should be the next layer. I know they are not bulletproof, but if they can help keep out the hordes, so much the better. The final layer should be the pilot. I've heard it said numerous times that a pilot's time is best spent flying, but that's a difficult thing to do with his throat cut. The possibility that he may hit an innocent has to balanced against the probable deaths of all aboard if the hijack is not stopped (and God knows how many on the ground). I'll take my chances with a hull puncture... once again, the alternative is too costly to consider. The TSA needs to get up off its collective ass and get the program running... not continue to practice passive resistance to the intent of Congress. Let's face it: the days of the "peaceful" hijack are over. Nobody wants to go to Cuba anymore. Hijacking now lead to the deaths of all aboard if they're successful. We can't allow that. If the airlines don't trust their pilots with guns, why did they hire them? Frankly, if the passengers don't trust their pilot with a gun, why would they be on a plane? I'm sure they could find an unarmed bus driver or train engineer more to their liking. Time to get up off the dime! -- Mortimer Schnerd, RN http://www.mortimerschnerd.com |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
In message , Jim Yanik
writes "Gord Beaman" ) wrote in While you are of just the opposite bent. Why not discuss the different offerings and try to pick the most effective/safest all around method?. Nobody doubts your gun knowledge here but you certainly can appear strident and unreasonable when someone argues against you. And please don't say "I do not!", I'm merely telling you how you come across. I'm advocating the KISS principle. Rather than spend lots of bucks on methods that can still be bypassed or breached,armed pilots will be effective and inexpensive,*immediately applicable*(a BIG positive),and in the long run,safer. Not if it's the only measure taken because it's cheap, quick, easy (and allows any failures to be blamed on the pilots) 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. -- 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 |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" wrote in
. com: Jim Yanik wrote: Cockpit defense need not be rocket science. The biggest mistake I see people making in the discussion of cockpit defense is the assumption that any one obstacle will be adequate, combined with a rather rigid assumption of probable conditions. I have no argument with any of these,but only one can be implemented in a short period of time,and with the added benefit of little expense. 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. Air marshalls in the cabin should be the second line of defense. I recognize there are nowhere near enough of them now, but it should be a goal. I'm not opposed to police officers and those with concealed carry permits carrying guns in the cabin either. Every one of them has had an extensive background check. We need to mix a few porcupines in with the wolves. We can't afford to all be sheep anymore. The armored cockpit door should be the next layer. I know they are not bulletproof, but if they can help keep out the hordes, so much the better. The final layer should be the pilot. I've heard it said numerous times that a pilot's time is best spent flying, but that's a difficult thing to do with his throat cut. The possibility that he may hit an innocent has to balanced against the probable deaths of all aboard if the hijack is not stopped (and God knows how many on the ground). I'll take my chances with a hull puncture... once again, the alternative is too costly to consider. There's also TWO pilots,one for flying,and one for shooting. 8-) The TSA needs to get up off its collective ass and get the program running... not continue to practice passive resistance to the intent of Congress. Let's face it: the days of the "peaceful" hijack are over. Nobody wants to go to Cuba anymore. Hijacking now lead to the deaths of all aboard if they're successful. We can't allow that. If the airlines don't trust their pilots with guns, why did they hire them? Frankly, if the passengers don't trust their pilot with a gun, why would they be on a plane? I'm sure they could find an unarmed bus driver or train engineer more to their liking. Time to get up off the dime! -- Jim Yanik jyanik-at-kua.net |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
Juvat wrote in
: After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Jim Yanik blurted out: One other thing;are any "crash axes" available in the passenger compartment? Or solely in the cockpit? (WRT commercial flights) Cockpit only...and ours are very sharp. Juvat And once it gets stuck in (or held by)the first hijacker,it's useless for any others. Miss,and you don't get another try. -- Jim Yanik jyanik-at-kua.net |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
"Gord Beaman" ) wrote in
: Jim Yanik wrote: If another hijacking does occur using guns,it probably -will- be an "inside job",IMO. But in that case,only an armed pilot will be capable of defending the cockpit.All the other security methods will have been rendered useless then. ?? How does a bad guy (even holding a gun) get through a secure cockpit door?...that's a silly statement Jim. Doors get opened during flight for various reasons.Even 'secure' ones. The reinforced cockpit doors alread have two examples of them being breached.(cleaning crew using a beverage cart as a ram.) An unruly passenger also kicked his way partly thru one,IIRC.(that guy got the crash axe!) There's more than one way to open a door. Det cord could have also been smuggled aboard,if guns have been. One other thing;are any "crash axes" available in the passenger compartment? Or solely in the cockpit? (WRT commercial flights) In military a/c yes, in civil airliners, I doubt it. -- -Gord. -- Jim Yanik jyanik-at-kua.net |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
Juvat wrote in
: After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Jim Yanik blurted out: People seem to come up with any excuse or farfetched or unlikely scenario in order to make an argument against armed pilots.Very irrational. Ummm, if you intended that remark for me...you are mistaken. I remember how farfetched or unlikely a total hydraulic failure in the DC-10 was... until it happened. Juvat How's that an argument against armed pilots? -- Jim Yanik jyanik-at-kua.net |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
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. 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. -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Jim Yanik
blurted out: People seem to come up with any excuse or farfetched or unlikely scenario in order to make an argument against armed pilots.Very irrational. To which I posted... Ummm, if you intended that remark for me...you are mistaken. That "should" have disabused you of any notion that I am opposed to armed pilots. But there are risks. Perhaps that's one reason that ugly divorces and personal financial difficulty are high interest items in the FFDO screening process...hmmmm. Clearly the following confused you just a bit...when I posted I remember how farfetched or unlikely a total hydraulic failure in the DC-10 was... until it happened. To which Jim Yanik asked. How's that an argument against armed pilots? Ummm, it's NOT, it's a reminder that no matter how convinced you might be that an armed pilot WILL NOT **** up and accidently shoot the other pilot or a windscreen/window...I think you are in error. Surely your flying career has vivid examples of guys ****ing up (when nobody was threatening them). I witnessed two guys land gear up. So...my initial post on how a window or other pilot COULD get shot by a FFDO, is plausible...NOT probable...simply plausible. If you are looking for somebody to argue with...count me out. I have no interest. Juvat |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Jim Yanik
blurted out: And once it gets stuck in (or held by)the first hijacker,it's useless for any others. Miss,and you don't get another try. 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). Be that as it may...do you have any familiarity with the current status of cockpit doors, security zones of the doors, VID procedures, deadbolts and electric locks on these doors? All these procedures and hardware are useless if crews **** up and think, "it can't happen to me." Juvat |
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 |