Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 9/13/2001 9:40:17 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 9:42:02 AM EDT
No carry on luggage. Not even a purse.
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 9:50:47 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 9:57:23 AM EDT
Simply securing the cockpit, allowing crew to carry concealed, and a pre-flight checklist for contraband would make bans on carry-on and even knives, unnecessary. Having dogs help with pre-flight inspection would hurt nothing.
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 9:57:47 AM EDT
"CCW allowed on planes with training IF your a CCW you take a plane safety training course and then receive a special permit to CCW on flights. When you arrive at the airport you go to a special clearance room where they run your prints and allow you clearance for the flight. Forget air marshals, having armed and trained CCWs on flights ensures more security in the air. Those of us willing to take the training should show up an extra 30-60 minutes before the flight to get processed." You're dreaming... No weapons of ANY kind will be allowed when this is over. Those new full body scanners that can see down thru your clothes will installed at all ports of entry. No knifes of ANY kind or size. Privacy? Stay home. You will be lucky if they still allow weapons to be checked through in baggage when the clampdown is finished. They would laugh you out of the room if you suggest CCW on airplanes by private citizens. Traveling by air is about to become a MAJOR pain in the ass.
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 9:57:54 AM EDT
Where can I get a plastic or ceramic gun???
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 9:59:25 AM EDT
It's a thought, but it imposes yet more restrictions. I agree with the idea of more bomb screening. I like the idea of the flight crew being armed. However, there have been instances of flight crews making suicidal plane crashes. Personally, I like the idea of anybody with a valid CCW being able to carry on a plane, but I don't think extra certificatiosn should be required. All that should be necessary is to carry the Remington frangible bullets. [url]http://www.remington.com/ammo/PAGES/pistolrev/disintegrator.htm[/url]
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 10:00:39 AM EDT
Originally Posted By GoatBoy: 3) CCW allowed on planes with training - IF your a CCW you take a plane safety training course and then receive a special permit to CCW on flights. -- GB
View Quote
I agree that this would provide better security than air marshalls alone - but it would likely be very difficult politically. If anyone were to go ahead with this in the political arena I suggest that the safety training and background checks required for ccw on a plane should be exactly the same as those required for an air marshall. Call 'em volunteer air marshalls if you want - same training, same standards.
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 10:02:21 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Pangea: No carry on luggage. Not even a purse.
View Quote
I'm all for making people check baggage, but restricting all forms of carry on is stupid. Anyone who's ever travelled with small children know that it would be impossible to travel with them and not have a diaper bag. What about those that might need medication of some sort during the flight? Carry on gets inspected pretty well for the most part. I always take my laptops and electronic gear as carryon, and I have to take them all out and show that they boot up and work. I certainly don't trust baggage handlers enough to check expensive electronic gear like that. It could get stolen, damaged, or sent to the wrong location completely. God Bless Texas
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 10:02:34 AM EDT
Originally Posted By schnacke: Where can I get a plastic or ceramic gun???
View Quote
This isn't Die Hard
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 10:04:25 AM EDT
I know this isn't die hard. I'm just wondering what GB was referring to when he said "plastic/ceramic guns and knives are much more common these days"
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 10:05:44 AM EDT
I'm all for a National CCW program that would allow us to carry on the plane. God Bless Texas
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 10:07:41 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 10:07:47 AM EDT
I am sorry, I apologize in advance....but you want more gun laws? The only check should be that someone checks your ammo to make sure that it is low velocity or non-piercing of some type. If a 98 year old granny with a piece and NO TRAINING makes the shot, I will be happy.
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 10:09:48 AM EDT
Originally Posted By schnacke: I know this isn't die hard. I'm just wondering what GB was referring to when he said "plastic/ceramic guns and knives are much more common these days"
View Quote
[url]http://www.ceramic-knives.com/[/url] They're mostly designed for cooking, but some are small enough to be easily conealable while being large enough to be threatening. God Bless Texas
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 10:10:50 AM EDT
Originally Posted By schnacke: Where can I get a plastic or ceramic gun???
View Quote
Army TM 31-210 The handgun designs in there look like they would work with wood, nylon - you might be able to adapt the basic design to ceramics as well.
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 10:11:59 AM EDT
Originally Posted By hound: I am sorry, I apologize in advance....but you want more gun laws? The only check should be that someone checks your ammo to make sure that it is low velocity or non-piercing of some type. If a 98 year old granny with a piece and NO TRAINING makes the shot, I will be happy.
View Quote
I'm sure he's referring to being qualified to wield a firearm on a pressurized aircraft flying at high altitudes... One bad shot, brings everyone down!
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 10:14:45 AM EDT
So I'm stupid GBT? Diapers could easily be provided by the stewardesses and as far as those who want to carry expensive electronic gear without messing it up? How messed up was the electronic gear on those 4 jets that were hijacked? I have only flown 4 times in my life. Ignorant, maybe. Stupid? Don't bet on it.
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 10:14:55 AM EDT
Removing the 70's policy of passively giving in to hijackers should change. Active resistence only. Good ideas GB, our first concern is securing the cockpit and arming pilots. There should be no access to them during flight, and they do not leave the cockpit during flight. Their food needs are pre-planned, and a restroom is secured for them. Hopefully, they will never give up another aircraft to hijackers.
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 10:16:28 AM EDT
Hello Tim...personal hopes that you are feeling better. The posts were discussing training in addition to the CCW training....which I stil have problems with. The one bad shot scenario is why I specified lo-vel or non-piercing ammo.
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 10:20:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/13/2001 10:20:25 AM EDT by schnacke]
"IMPROVISED MUNITIONS HANDBOOK. Department of the Army technical manual TM 31-210 designed for use by U.S. Special Forces. 256 pages describe in detail the manufacture of field expedient munitions by personnel not normally familiar with making and handling munitions. Included are methods for fabricating explosives, detonators, propellants, shaped charges, small arms, mortars, incendiaries, delays, switches, and similar items from common everyday materials. Available in either the standard 5.5"x8.5" Manual size or in a small 3.75"x5.25" Top bound pocket sized edition. ML7062 . . . . $5.00ea. (New lower price!)" Are there any guns in existence that contain no metal but can handle the pressure of the explosion needed to propel a bullet? I'm not talking theory, I'm talking about an actual gun. I just think it's not smart to be throwing around terms like 'plastic and ceramic guns' on a gun board when there aren't any guns that don't require an amount of metal that wouldn't be picked up by a metal detector.
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 10:30:51 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 10:33:27 AM EDT
Originally Posted By hound: I am sorry, I apologize in advance....but you want more gun laws? The only check should be that someone checks your ammo to make sure that it is low velocity or non-piercing of some type. If a 98 year old granny with a piece and NO TRAINING makes the shot, I will be happy.
View Quote
And if she misses and hits you or some CNN reporter's daughter, would you still be happy after it hit the news for the next six to ten weeks? There would be massive political resistance to allowing citizens to carry onboard an aircraft simply because one bad egg could result in a disaster. BUT - providing armed citizens with training exactly equivalent to that provided to air marshalls would silence most objections to the plan. After all, these fully checked, upstanding members of society would be completely trained and certified as air marshalls. The only difference is that the taxpayers would not have to pay their salary. Normally I'm not a fan of gun laws, but in this case a legal/political solution such as the one I have mentioned might have a better chance of becoming law than a solution which proposes shall issue carry permits for use on airliners.
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 10:38:09 AM EDT
I strongly support CCW but not on planes. Terrorists could too easily get valid CCWs. Or they could get a mole to bring them on with a valid CCW. This is simple. Improve cockpit security. Upgrade that closet door with the lavatory lock to an actual door that prevents access. Air Marshalls. Thankfully this is in the works. A Texas Senator is introducing legislation today that would restore the air marshall program. I feel a minimum of 2 on each flight, one in the cockpit and one outside, would suffice. Also ammo would need to be addressed for safety on aircraft.
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 10:39:04 AM EDT
Originally Posted By schnacke: Where can I get a plastic or ceramic gun???
View Quote
Check this posting for that [url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?id=51490[/url]
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 10:41:08 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 10:44:59 AM EDT
The biggest bar to CCW on aircraft is ensuring that everyone is carrying ammunition that wont penetrate the plane hull. Better to put on plain clothes US Marshals and to have the flght attendants carry guns issued for the purpose and properly loaded with FAA approved ammo. e8ight you are worrying about the WRONG thing buddy. Thousand of people are dead now because of that kind of thinking. Hostages have to be considered expendable. Now that everyone is aware of how much damage a rogue airliner can to the rest of the public, we have to call for one hundred percent resistance by the aircrew and passengers to any takeover attempt, since from now on you will never be able to tell whether or not they are going to crash that plane into something that has even more lives.
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 10:50:36 AM EDT
Securing the cockpit is NOT the answer. Remember the EgyptAir flight that crashed into the Atlantic because the co-pilot was suicidal? No thanks. The problem with a separate pressurized cabin for the flight crew is that there would be structural problems for the plane if one of them lost pressure and the other didn't. As far as CCWs go, I think that MANY would carry if they could. If a terrorist or two managed to get a CCW and try to seize a plane, they would have to consider the fact that they would be facing MANY firearms pointed at them. Reminds me of a story a friend told me. He was on vacation in AZ and caught a news story about a perp that decided to rob a local convenience store. Well, AZ is the wrong plase to do that, as 9 (NINE) private citizens exercising their RKBA shot him before the police arrived. I don't remember whether of not he lived to be prosecuted, but I did find it interesting that nobody else was hurt.
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 10:50:54 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/13/2001 10:50:47 AM EDT by GodBlessTexas]
Originally Posted By Pangea: So I'm stupid GBT?
View Quote
Did I say that? Let's see...
Originally Posted By GodBlessTexas: I'm all for making people check baggage, but restricting all forms of carry on is stupid. Anyone who's ever travelled with small children know that it would be impossible to travel with them and not have a diaper bag. What about those that might need medication of some sort during the flight?
View Quote
Nope, I sure didn't. I called an action stupid, but I don't see any place that I stated that YOU were stupid. Please, take the time to read and comprehend what's there before you get your undies in a bunch.
Diapers could easily be provided by the stewardesses
View Quote
Ever wiped with airline toilet paper? Do you think they'd spend anymore on something going on my kids butt? No thanks. I'll use the quality diapers, wipes, rash cream, teething gel, Children's Tylenol, crackers, and toys I pay for, thank you.
and as far as those who want to carry expensive electronic gear without messing it up? How messed up was the electronic gear on those 4 jets that were hijacked?
View Quote
I travel for business. At any given time I carry at least $10,000 worth of electronics and computer gear with me because I do Information Security work for large companies. That equates to two laptops and other various pieces of gear. My ability to work REQUIRES that my gear ends up where I do. Otherwise I could spend a couple hundred on SKB or Pelican gear to keep it all safe during flights, but that doesn't guarantee that it'll get there with me. If it doesn't end up with me, I can't do my job.
I have only flown 4 times in my life.
View Quote
And I'm assuming you've never lost baggage either. It will happen, and it will suck, especially when they can't find it and are only authorized to pay you a couple of hundred dollars for the contents of your luggage.
Ignorant, maybe. Stupid? Don't bet on it.
View Quote
Ok, you win. If you want to be anything, I guess ignorant isn't bad. At least there's a cure for that. God Bless Texas
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 10:59:51 AM EDT
Great idea GoatBoy, Unfortunatley, The media has already affected most everyone as thinking anyone with a gun is a crazed lunatic. My entire office thinks allowing people to carry on a plane would just get everyone killed as Barney Fife fumbled for his ammo. It is really sickening. They don't even think Air Marshalls are the answer, cuz it could be a source of guns for the terrorist. They seem to be secure in their calm little victim worlds. Got I want to puke. I also want to puke, these are all highly educated people. I wish I would never had left my old job. People there at least had common sense and took responsibility for themselves. They believe everyone with a CCW would just shoot everyone on or at the first gunshot. Mind you I live and work in ARIZONA of all places. I honestly hope some of these people are affected by crime, so they realize just how helpless the police are when they need protected. It seems only then to they realize that only they can protect themselves.
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 11:02:24 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Matt_S: Great idea GoatBoy, Unfortunatley, The media has already affected most everyone as thinking anyone with a gun is a crazed lunatic. My entire office thinks allowing people to carry on a plane would just get everyone killed as Barney Fife fumbled for his ammo. It is really sickening. They don't even think Air Marshalls are the answer, cuz it could be a source of guns for the terrorist. They seem to be secure in their calm little victim worlds. Got I want to puke. I also want to puke, these are all highly educated people. I wish I would never had left my old job. People there at least had common sense and took responsibility for themselves. They believe everyone with a CCW would just shoot everyone on or at the first gunshot. Mind you I live and work in ARIZONA of all places. I honestly hope some of these people are affected by crime, so they realize just how helpless the police are when they need protected. It seems only then to they realize that only they can protect themselves.
View Quote
An air marshall would be a good source of guns for terrorists. unless the guy is in a fucking pillbox pointing his gun at everyone who comes near him, the air marshall could be taken out
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 11:04:46 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG: I strongly support CCW but not on planes. Terrorists could too easily get valid CCWs. Or they could get a mole to bring them on with a valid CCW. This is simple.
View Quote
I think most people haven't realized is that airplane hijacking has completely changed. From now on we're going to have to assume that plane hijackings are going to be for terrorist acts like we witnessed on Tuesday. If you have a plane full of CCW's, then there is a much better chance that any terrorist activities would be minimal. If the chances of succeeding are not good they will not try.
Improve cockpit security. Upgrade that closet door with the lavatory lock to an actual door that prevents access.
View Quote
I say we should also arm and train the pilots. If you can't trust them with that, then you certainly shouldn't be trusting them behind the controls.
Air Marshalls. Thankfully this is in the works. A Texas Senator is introducing legislation today that would restore the air marshall program. I feel a minimum of 2 on each flight, one in the cockpit and one outside, would suffice. Also ammo would need to be addressed for safety on aircraft.
View Quote
First, let me say God bless Texas. [:)] Secondly, there are on average over 5,000 planes in flight at any given time in the Continental US. Furthermore, you put them in the cockpit you immediately mark them as a target. The Sky/Air Marshal program puts them in among the passengers like everyone else and no one knows who they are. This low profile is key. God Bless Texas
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 11:15:07 AM EDT
Guys, While a hole in the skin of an aircraft would creates some structural issues, they are designed to fly even with rapid depressurization which is why they all have oxygen masks. The only people really threatened would be those out of their seats, terrorists and crew members. I believe it is hollowwood hype that the whole aircraft is coming down. Besides, the aircraft falling uncontrolled, is a whole lot better than it becoming a guided bomb. The key is deterance. If you lose the plane you lose the plane. But if the terrorists cannot gain control, why would they try? You have to remember, the Air Force flies planes that are pressurized inside for crew comfort on long haul missions. Do you think they will fall out of the air if they get a hole in side?
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 11:20:40 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 11:22:06 AM EDT
Would I take a bullet to avoid a disaster like we just had ? Yep, you could open up with a UZI and mow down everyone in the passenger compartment and as long as the hijacker died, I would smile and go gladly into the darkness. The training question is confusing and sad..should we only allow hunters to have guns....we are locked into a beer can for hours and most of what I am seeing are plans to make us more defenseless. Air marshalls are a great idea and the statements about them being a source for a weapon is the same that has been used against us by liberals....they will just take your guns and shoot you with it. Not today and not soon.....cold dead hands.
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 11:44:02 AM EDT
Originally Posted By BCBUD:
Originally Posted By Matt_S: Great idea GoatBoy, Unfortunatley, The media has already affected most everyone as thinking anyone with a gun is a crazed lunatic. My entire office thinks allowing people to carry on a plane would just get everyone killed as Barney Fife fumbled for his ammo. It is really sickening. They don't even think Air Marshalls are the answer, cuz it could be a source of guns for the terrorist. They seem to be secure in their calm little victim worlds. Got I want to puke. I also want to puke, these are all highly educated people. I wish I would never had left my old job. People there at least had common sense and took responsibility for themselves. They believe everyone with a CCW would just shoot everyone on or at the first gunshot. Mind you I live and work in ARIZONA of all places. I honestly hope some of these people are affected by crime, so they realize just how helpless the police are when they need protected. It seems only then to they realize that only they can protect themselves.
View Quote
An air marshall would be a good source of guns for terrorists. unless the guy is in a fucking pillbox pointing his gun at everyone who comes near him, the air marshall could be taken out
View Quote
How the hell would they know who the air marshal was? Its not like they wear uniforms.
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 11:50:25 AM EDT
Originally Posted By hound: Would I take a bullet to avoid a disaster like we just had ? Yep, you could open up with a UZI and mow down everyone in the passenger compartment and as long as the hijacker died, I would smile and go gladly into the darkness. The training question is confusing and sad..should we only allow hunters to have guns....we are locked into a beer can for hours and most of what I am seeing are plans to make us more defenseless. Air marshalls are a great idea and the statements about them being a source for a weapon is the same that has been used against us by liberals....they will just take your guns and shoot you with it. Not today and not soon.....cold dead hands.
View Quote
I am not concerned about training, I am concerned about people bringing the wrong ammo. While a crashed plane is preferable to a plane in control by hijackers that could do anything, people are entitled to a [i]chance[/i] to survive. If they would just put a few layers of Kevlar inside the pressure hull to protect it, like the spall protection on AFVs. That coupled with the existing hull linings and the strength of the hulls themselves- which are much stronger than they were in first gen airliners like 707- we would be able to use any handgun ammo without fear.
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 11:55:28 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Striker: I think the most obvious solution is make the flight deck separate from the passenger compartment so the pressure in the cabin can be dropped while the pressure in the flight deck stays the same. I mentioned this tactic is used by a certain group of pilots who transport prisoners. If you make the flight deck impenetrable from the passenger compartment via 2 bulletproof doors that work independently of each other (one has to be closed before the other one opens), equip the flight attendants with personal silent alarms that alert the flight crew to a hijacking in progress and have video surveillance of the passenger compartment by a member of the flight crew then the crew can immediately drop the pressure. After everyone in the passenger compartment is unconscious..members of the flight crew can move to the passenger compartment and secure any known hijackers. Then maintain an armed presence in the passenger compartment until the plane lands at the nearest airport. If you maintain control of the flight deck..you maintain control of the aircraft. Rendering all passengers unconscious is the only way to guarantee you have the plane secure.
View Quote
Interesting..... [b]VERY[/b] interesting indeed. The only problem I see with your approach is that some dickhead lawyer would immediately sue you if someone died or was otherwise hurt when you dropped the pressure. Hey, maybe we can install an airlock, so that once everyone is out cold and the hijackers have been secured, they can be shown the exit from 35,000 feet, and the flight can continue comfortably on! Just think of the savings when we don't have to take the little shits to trial! [;D]
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 12:05:38 PM EDT
Striker, I agree with your comments in principle, but beg to differ on the solution. Agreed, there is no truly effective means to keep weapons off of aircraft. But you also have to consider the actions of a terrorist, which is why I brought up the story of the convenience store in Arizona. Terrorists are cowards that seek opportunities to strike at weak targets. Palestinians used to strike at Israeli schools. At least until they discovered that the teachers and parents were partolling them ARMED. Number of attacks since then? ZERO. A running gun battle is not likely to occur, as the terrorists will realize that their mission is futile and seek other targets. The danger in decompressing the aircraft suddenly is that it has very adverse effect on controlling the plane. The expelled gas will act to disrupt the airflow and impart thrust on the plan in unpredictable ways. The airframe isn't going to like that change in pressure either. Maintining "control" of the cabin by the pilot is a statist point of view and puts an unnecessary burden upon the flight crew and any air marshals that might be present. Your point about screening people is relevant to this. The EgyptAir 767 had 2 in the cabin and the pilot fought for control and failed. Nobody could get to the cabin because the co-pilot pulled negative g's in his death dive, preventing ANY movement. Kinda hard to walk to the cockpit when you're pinned to the ceiling. 99.99999% of the people on a plane want to get to their destination. A very tiny minority wants to perform a terrorist act. Since I have a vested interest in preventing disruption, I should have the means to prevent it. The other thing to consider is the cost. Salary, benefits, overhead/administration, training, meals & expenses, plus the loss of revenue from giving up a seat to a security guard. You also need to find literally THOUSANDS of these 100% reliable people and pay them well enough to care about their jobs. I worked up an estimate of the cost and came up with about $250,000 a year per person. That pays for 500 Kimbers per aircraft. Bottom line is that there are usually casualties in a hijacking, regardless of what the outcome is. Given the change in the Rules of Engagement by these terrorists, I want to improve my fighting chances.
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 12:13:22 PM EDT
Trains.
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 12:13:41 PM EDT
I'm basing my next statement on the training and experience I have as a Correctional Officer. You will never be able to stop weapons from getting on air craft.
View Quote
Are you trying to say that we can't make every airport in the country more secure than a maximum security prison? Stop, you're making too much sense!
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 12:26:35 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 12:37:45 PM EDT
No prob, Striker. A little more information: Commercial jets fly at 35000-39000 feet, whereas small turboprops fly at around 20000 feet. The greater pressure differential and the greater total quantity of air in the plane makes for much more trauma to the plane. As far as a prison plane is concerned, yes, a depressurization at 18K feet is enough to render people unconscious. In reference to the people watching the people who are guarding the people - that's why we established the Second Amendment, with the idea that the people (all of them) are the ultimate guardians of their safety and freedom as well as the watchdogs of the government. Seems that "obsolete, archaic" notion has become important again, especially considering that the consequences of surrendering liberty for security are becoming more severe.
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 1:05:41 PM EDT
Planes depressurize occasionally. This occurs at any altitude, and most often at high altitudes. Depressurization almost never results in the loss of the plane. Remember about 10 years ago there was a catastrophic failure on a Aloha! airline flying in Hawaii. The missing section of fuselage was about 8 rows x 1/4 the way around the fuselage. The only people killed in my hazy memory were a female stewerdess who was not belted in, and perhaps a passenger or two. The plane landed safely. I would not worry in the least about bullets in the cabin. As soon as the terrorists are subdued, the pilot could easily get the plane down below 15,000 feet where oxygen is not necessary. I vote for CCW on planes with the only hinderance being a national database of CCW holders that can be accessed instantly at the terminal enterance. If you are in the database, you may get on the plane with your weapon. There should probably be a several hour course to apply, in addition to your state requirements. The more guns in society, the better.
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 1:15:33 PM EDT
i plan on using an alternative to airline travel as often as possible. not because of recent events, but because i refuse to add several additional hours to check in and out of an airport, to be treated like a potential terrorist and give up more of my rights in a futile effort to 'make our skies safer.' i don't feel a need to give up my personal liberty because i travel by plane. i don't feel a need to become a ward of the government because i want to fly, and THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT PROTECT ME!! i felt violated as it was when going through security at palm beach international with nothing in my pockets and their equipment so sensitive that my belt buckle or the metal eyes for my shoe laces set off their alarms. then i had to assume the position to get the wand passover and then the explosive hinge and handle test on my laptop case. it was a pain and almost impossible just trying to get a small pocket knife through security. if you have a ccw, it is practically impossible to take a firearm with you, thus making you a victim waiting to happen on the other end. if you travel a lot for business or personal reasons, no curbside check in- lllooonnnnggg lines are always waiting at the inside check-in. the last minute ticket changes, ticket purchases, cancelled flights, lost and brain dead are always lined up there. instead of giving your expensive electronics to the baggage monkeys, why not just smash it with a hammer yourself. it is much more fun, you then know you won't have it for that important business presentation (probably the reason you are on the plane anyway) and you won't have to carry the extra weight by taking it with you. and what about your cell phones-i think everyone that travels that did not have one will have one now. AS USUAL, the simple and sane solutions of sky marshals, letting CCW holders carry on the plane, isolating and arming the crews with a don't open the reinforced cabin doors/no negotiation policy have lost out to the make the passengers and crews more vulnerable and defenseless mentality that runs this country. i remember when you COULD carry on planes (yes, it is true, no firearms on airlines is just one more recent erosion of freedom and has not eliminated the first skyjacking that i am aware of), and who is to say that some of the passengers that tried to resist didn't use their pocket knives in a effort to FIGHT BACK and save themselves.
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 1:18:34 PM EDT
Originally Posted By GodBlessTexas: Furthermore, you put them in the cockpit you immediately mark them as a target. The Sky/Air Marshal program puts them in among the passengers like everyone else and no one knows who they are. This low profile is key. God Bless Texas
View Quote
The Marshall in cockpit is for cockpit security. I think there should be a minimum of 2 MP5s in the cockpit. The pilots should receive training and have access. But it is a given that they will be busy flying the plane. 2 air marshalls one among passengers with a concealed handgun and one in the cockpit with access to MP5s. This would be a simple effective solution. Air Marshalls would of course receive the proper CT training and drill scenarios.
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 1:19:04 PM EDT
The Aloha Airlines flight you were referring to was an inter-island flight. Those rarely go over 20,000 feet. It was a miracle the fuselage held together. As I said before, a high altitude depressurizazation is much more likely to lead to a catastrophe.
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 1:24:34 PM EDT
Originally Posted By QCMGR: Trains.
View Quote
Yeah, they have been complaining for a while now about how overcrowded our airports have been getting. Maybe people will flock to Amtrack after this.
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 1:29:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/13/2001 1:30:26 PM EDT by Torf]
Originally Posted By RichinCM: The Aloha Airlines flight you were referring to was an inter-island flight. Those rarely go over 20,000 feet. It was a miracle the fuselage held together. As I said before, a high altitude depressurizazation is much more likely to lead to a catastrophe.
View Quote
True, I have been there, but 1/4 of the fuselage was missing! They flew 450 knots in a convertible! That is a heck of a lot more structural punishment than a few .45 inch holes could deliver at 35,000 feet. I am not aware of sudden decompression ever causing a plane crash. Decompression does happen though, and pilots are routinely trained to handle the situation. The plane won't pop like a balloon, so unless the bullet strikes a viewport, decompression would be far less than "sudden". Small arms bullets penetrate planes with nearly zero bad effects. Regardless of the outcome, I think we can agree that decompression is far better than hijacking. A plane in this situation would probably be magna-fluxed and retired or repaired and returned to service. Edited to add clarity.
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 1:40:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/13/2001 1:41:25 PM EDT by thumbtrap]
I agree with Matt_S on this one. A half inch hole in an fuselage hull is NOT going to cause it to blow apart in mid air. The biggest thing is the time to descend from 35,000 ft to under 10,000 ft. Folks - now is [b]the[/b] time to push CCW. Not be afraid of what the media thinks. The media will never be on our side. The people right now can be turned if they ever can. A frail granny with a revolver could have stopped any one of these planes. And you must consider this - the plane which crashed in PA - while all lives aboard were lost - was a successfully thwarted hijacking. The same applies to knives and other things which could be used as weapons. By restricting weapons, you not only give up your liberty, you ensure that only bad guys have them. But we're also ignoring the greatest value of CCW. DETERRENCE! Is it the cowboy in the back row (nope, he's just a city slicker wannabe going to a Garth Brooks concert.) The mother with the two little kids? The fat guy in first class? For this reason - I don't even think frangible ammo is a concern. If people carry - it won't happen. Anything less means the lightest of body armor renders you nearly bulletproof. I think we'll see the cockpit sealed off. There is basically nothing that can stop a suicidal pilot except the other pilot. I intend to sharply curtail my flying in the future - not because I think it could happen again - but because it was already dehumanizing enough to be treated like cattle with no rights. I won't abide what it's about to become - I'll drive or get there in a 172 first. [edited for grammar]
Link Posted: 9/13/2001 1:54:58 PM EDT
Half inch holes in a fuselage with a 10 PSI pressure differential and a lot of gas to vent don't stay as half inch holes for very long. Please don't argue with an aircraft structural engineer. Think about what happens to a can of Coke when you shake it up, then shoot a hole in it. DeHavilland produced a plane called the Comet in the early 50s. It had a nasty habit of windows popping out at high altitude, causing numerous crashes. What happened was fatigue cracks would start at the corner of the window. The pressure differential would make the crack propagate and make the structure fail. That design defect caused the bankruptcy of DeHavilland and led to the US becoming the leader in commercial jet aviation with the DC8 and 707.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top