Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 8/30/2002 3:11:51 PM EDT
"The goal of the group... is to provide public education and training to assist in thwarting crime and terrorism." "Passengers should do everything they can to prevent the cockpit from being breached." "They emphasize that passengers should act only under the instructions of uniformed flight crew to assist them or act only if the flight crew is incapacitated." Sitting in a shuttle in earth orbit, you hear the voice of Capt. Kirk: "Welcome ladies and gentlemen to flight 555 TransWorld Airlines. After one more orbit of the earth we will slingshot to the moon, arriving in 7 days. We realize that many of you are concerned with terrorists. And we know that none of you are armed. I'm confident you'll think of something. The training we gave you is very important. You must, at all costs, stop anyone who tries to enter the cockpit. You must save me, Capt Kirk!! And of course, ahem, yourself and fellow passengers. Cough cough. The government won't protect you and neither will TransWorld Airlines. It's up to you." Ok, satire aside. Protect myself with no weapon, save the plane and passengers and self. I'd do it. Once again it boils down to personal responsibility for self safety. But give me a weapon!! And give me a reduced fare, damnit!! And wait until a stewardess tells me to act? I don't think so. I wonder: if they taught those folks how to improvise weapons. what the airlines official position is on this. what the gov't officially thinks about this. Please put your head between your legs and kiss your ass good bye, 'cause you're expected to defend an aircraft while unarmed.
Link Posted: 8/30/2002 3:16:16 PM EDT
The passenger compartment is FULL of materials that can be used as weapons. Pens, pencils, those heavy rechargeable flashlights, the hot coffee, a heavy magazine, the fact that there are 100 of us and 4 or fewer of them, I could go on but you get my point.
Link Posted: 8/30/2002 3:33:17 PM EDT
I couldn't agree with you more. After rereading my post, it appears "whinny." Bottom line: I'm tired of being responsible for my own safety and not being able to arm myself based on how/what I perceive as the threat. At least some places. You know though, even with the passenger/terrorist ratio on the acft that crashed in PA, the passengers were not able to save themselves. Wonder if we will ever know what really happened. 87 Citadel Grad? My daughter attended there for 3 months and an "incident" occurred. She's home now. The situation is under "review" but she stood her ground and biffed the asshole(attacker) in the head with a rifle. Good on her! That's my girl!
Link Posted: 8/30/2002 3:47:41 PM EDT
Agreed, I'd rather have the option as well as the advantage of being armed and the terrs not knowing where the fatal headshot will be coming from. I think 93 was a little different. I'm not sure at what point they figured that they were not really being hijacked, and they lost a lot of time before they knew what the game was. I think now the assumption from the start will be that it is a fight to the death, and things will hopefully be different. Sorry to hear about your daughter. I am against women at the Citadel, but she got in and deserved a fair shake. In addition to the buttstroke he took, her assailant's future is trashed, rest assured. If I were still there, I would have handled it myself. Wrong is wrong, and the place exists to forge gentlemen, citizens, and soldiers, not goons.
Top Top