OK, what the hell has happened to the Brits?

In article ,
Andrew Rowley wrote:
"You don't want guns on aircraft at 30,000 feet. The air marshals have
frangible bullets, of course. But what's to stop the terrorist from
getting into a shootout with the air marshal? The terrorist won't have
frangible bullets. Then you have the specter of a bullet piercing the
airplane's skin, explosion decompression and all that entails, even
unto passengers being sucked out of the aircraft."

The statement, of course, went unchallenged by the host.

What would you challenge? The fact that you don't want guns on board?
The possibility of explosive decompression?


What's better, explosive decompression or a fuel-loaded airplane being
slammed into a busy downtown area by a terrorist who is able to gain
control of the airplane?



JKG

"Jonathan Goodish" wrote in message
...

What's better, explosive decompression or a fuel-loaded airplane being
slammed into a busy downtown area by a terrorist who is able to gain
control of the airplane?


Fuel-loaded? The effected flights would be departing foreign airports bound
for the US. In the case of the British we're talking about trans-Atlantic
flights. Wouldn't the fuel load be rather light by the time they're able to
strike a US target?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

Fuel-loaded? The effected flights would be departing foreign airports bound
for the US. In the case of the British we're talking about trans-Atlantic
flights. Wouldn't the fuel load be rather light by the time they're able to
strike a US target?

The flights aren't all one-way. Sooner or later, they take off again. Putting the
air marshals on board protects them in both directions.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

In article et,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
What's better, explosive decompression or a fuel-loaded airplane being
slammed into a busy downtown area by a terrorist who is able to gain
control of the airplane?


Fuel-loaded? The effected flights would be departing foreign airports bound
for the US. In the case of the British we're talking about trans-Atlantic
flights. Wouldn't the fuel load be rather light by the time they're able to
strike a US target?


So Britain isn't a terrorist target anymore?


JKG

In article et,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:
What's better, explosive decompression or a fuel-loaded airplane being
slammed into a busy downtown area by a terrorist who is able to gain
control of the airplane?


Fuel-loaded? The effected flights would be departing foreign airports bound
for the US. In the case of the British we're talking about trans-Atlantic
flights. Wouldn't the fuel load be rather light by the time they're able to
strike a US target?


And, the bottom line is I don't think it matters if the airplanes are
are fuel full or empty, a jumbo jet is going to make a big mess if it's
crashed into a populated area. That's the real point.


JKG

In article ,
Jonathan Goodish wrote:
What's better, explosive decompression or a fuel-loaded airplane being
slammed into a busy downtown area by a terrorist who is able to gain
control of the airplane?

Do you really think that these days that a typical B747 load of people
(over 200) would allow a handful of hijackers to live long enough to try
crashing the plane?

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

"Dylan Smith" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jonathan Goodish wrote:
What's better, explosive decompression or a fuel-loaded airplane being
slammed into a busy downtown area by a terrorist who is able to gain
control of the airplane?

Do you really think that these days that a typical B747 load of people
(over 200) would allow a handful of hijackers to live long enough to try
crashing the plane?

Depends on what country the plane originated from. On an Air France flight,
the passengers would probably appease terrorists, subdue any Americans on
the plane trying to fight back, and curse the USA all the way into whatever
target the terrorists had planned for them.

A British Airways flight, maybe not, but I wouldn't expect miracles from
them either.

"Andrew Rowley" wrote in message
...

What would you challenge? The fact that you don't want guns on board?
The possibility of explosive decompression?

I have seen it said that a bullet hole through the skin would not
cause explosive decompression. I can believe that is true if it is a
small hole, from relatively perpendicular to the skin. What if the
bullet was at a shallow angle to the skin however, as if it had been
fired along the cabin? Then I would imagine the hole would be more
like a long tear, and explosive decompression seems more likely. There
is a lot of pressure there, remember Comets, JAL, Aloha airlines etc.


Are the passengers better off if the terrorists gain control of the aircraft
to use as a weapon?

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

I was driving home from Cannon Mountain yesterday afternoon, and
listening to NRP (National Partisan Radio) as I went. The subject of
air marshals came up. The Talking Head was a London-based security
consultant. He said in effect:

"You don't want guns on aircraft at 30,000 feet. The air marshals have
frangible bullets, of course. But what's to stop the terrorist from
getting into a shootout with the air marshal? The terrorist won't have
frangible bullets. Then you have the specter of a bullet piercing the
airplane's skin, explosion decompression and all that entails, even
unto passengers being sucked out of the aircraft."

The statement, of course, went unchallenged by the host.


And yet it raises several questions in rational minds. The question, "But
what's to stop the terrorist from getting into a shootout with the air
marshal?", concedes that terrorists can get weapons aboard aircraft. That
being the case, what's the downside of having an armed air marshal aboard?
That it may cause passengers to be sucked out of the aircraft? Please. If
the terrorists gain control of the aircraft to use as a weapon the
passengers are all doomed anyway.

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...
|
| Now the British airline pilots are considering refusingto fly if there is
an
| armed security guard on a flight, citing the danger of a gunshot in a
| pressurized airliner.
|
| I was driving home from Cannon Mountain yesterday afternoon, and
| listening to NRP (National Partisan Radio) as I went. The subject of
| air marshals came up. The Talking Head was a London-based security
| consultant. He said in effect:
|
| "You don't want guns on aircraft at 30,000 feet. The air marshals have
| frangible bullets, of course. But what's to stop the terrorist from
| getting into a shootout with the air marshal? The terrorist won't have
| frangible bullets.

Yes. It is much better to allow the terrorist to take over the airplane and
deliberately kill everybody on board while causing as much death and
destruction on the ground as possible. What an idiot.