OT:Prevent Airline Hijacking

[Paul Hovnanian P.E.]

Pooh Bear wrote:

Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:

On Thu, 12 May 2005 02:50:46 +0000, Mac wrote:
Sometimes I joke that instead of taking away sharp things from passengers
they should give knives to every passenger as they board. Think about it.
The good guys always outnumber the bad guys. What we need is to make sure
the bad guys can't overcome this numerical superiority with weapons.

Strangely, I have never found anyone who agrees with me. ;-)

Scott Adams: "Atheist Airlines":
http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/dnrc/html/newsletter49.html
scroll about 4/5 the way down the page, under "New Airline Idea".

Reminds me of my idea to keep Jihadist terrorists from boarding the plane.

Every passenger has to eat a bacon sandwich before boarding. That'll keep them
off your flight. ;-)

There was a Muslim woman that encountered a peculiar problem when flying
after 9/11. A passenger seated next to her requested that they be moved
to another seat, no feeling 'safe' sitting next to a Muslim. Afterwards,
this lady asked, "Were they really going to be any safer sitting 4 rows
back if she blew up the airplane?"

--
Paul Hovnanian mailtoaul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
A limerick packs laughs anatomical
Into space that is quite economical.
But the good ones I've seen
So seldom are clean,
And the clean ones so seldom are comical.

 

[Mike Monett]

Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:

[...]

People getting sucked out holes is a myth. There was a 747 that lost a
cargo door and a chunk of the passenger cabin wall at altitude. Other
than the poor guy whose seat was attached to the chunk of airplane that
got ripped out, nobody else went out the hole.

Nine people went through that hole:

24 February 1989; United Air Lines 747; near Hawaii

The aircraft suffered a explosive decompression when an improperly
closed cargo door broke open at 13,000 feet on climbout from
Honolulu. Although 9 passengers were sucked out of the aircraft, it
returned to Honolulu for a safe landing.

http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/ua811/photo.shtml

Explosive decompression means just that - an explosion. It blows people out of the
plane. Here's more examples:

20 NOV 2000 An American Airlines crew member died when he opened the
door of an Airbus A.300 before the fuselage was depressurized and
`was basically sucked out of the plane onto the tarmac`; Flight 1291
was being evacuated following a return to Miami, FL after engine
problem indications. (AP)

http://aviation-safety.net/news/news.php?var=200011%25&sort=ASC

July 9, 1997 - Passenger Sucked Out Of Brazilian Jet

SAO PAULO, Brazil - A passenger was sucked out of a Brazilian
airplane and fell to his death after an explosion tore off an
emergency door on Wednesday, police said.

http://dnausers.d-n-a.net/dnetGOjg/090797.htm

Bomb tears hole in airliner

Four people, including an eight-month old baby, have been sucked out
of a TWA passenger jet after an explosion ripped a hole in its side.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/2/newsid_4357000/4357159.stm

3 November 1973; National Airlines DC10; over New Mexico, USA: The
aircraft had an uncontained failure of one of the wing mounted
engines. A piece of the engine struck the fuselage and broke a
passenger window. One of the 116 passengers was sucked out of the
aircraft during a rapid decompression. The remains of the passenger
were not found.

3 March 1974; THY DC10-10; near Paris, France: During climb, a rear
cargo door which was improperly closed blew out. The resulting cabin
decompression caused damage to the main cabin floor and to some
control cables in the area. The crew was unable to control the
aircraft and the plane crashed. All 333 passengers and 12 crew were
killed.

http://www.airsafe.com/events/models/dc10.htm

2003 May 9th. Democratic Republic of Congo, near Mbuji-Maji: Some 45
minutes into a flight from Kinshasa to the southeastern city of
Lubumbashi the rear door of a Russian-built Ilyushin 76 cargo jet
burst open at a height of 7,000 feet. The chartered aircraft, owned
by the Ukrainian Defense Ministry was carrying Congolese soldiers,
police officials and their relatives. Forty people clung to the
insides of the plane as tumbling baggage struck their heads and
bodies, injuring about nine of them. The pilots managed to turn back
and to land safely in Kinshasa. Estimated 129 people were sucked out
of the plane.

http://www.emergency-management.net/avi_acc_2000.htm

Mike Monett

 

[Ian Stirling]

Roger Hamlett <rogerspamignored@ttelmah.demon.co.uk> wrote:

"Luhan Monat" <x@y.z> wrote in message
news:R9vge.14860$tQ.2513@fed1read06...
Hey, lots of brainpower in this ng. What about this...

In "Wrath of Kahn", they took back control of the Enterprise by a secret
override code known only to bridge officers.

Put this in every airliner, each with a unique and very secret code to
take control of it. Now, you just have to keep a few thousand codes
secret (1 floppy disc?) to protect the entire airline industry. This
prevents ever having to shoot down one of our own airliners.
Firstly, you are assuming that the plane is controlled completely by
electronics. This is simply not true on most of the current fleet.

Neglecting this.

Then you assume that the control system will be able to work (jamming
radio signals is not hard).

And this.

Then you assume that it will be possible to keep something 'secret'. There
have been many bank robberies, where it was people at the bank, who
organised the crime.
'Very secret', just does not exist. If something has to be secret at this
level, you need it to be split into multiple parts, so that several people

Very secret does exist.
For example, nuclear keys.

But, the 4 or 5 guys in each of 2 or 3 redundant control bunkers on shift
at the time, who verify and issue keys is in many ways the easy bit.

They can fairly easily generate a key that is supplied to the other team
in secure bunkers, who can fly the aircraft.

But.
Now, you need to add a complete new infrastructure.
Complete radar monitoring, and secured transponders on all traffic.
Detailed flight plans, with monitoring every few seconds, to ensure
no deviation.

And you've fundamentally changed the model.
If you can't trust the pilot to tell you if they've been hijacked, then
what about emergencies?

If the pilot is deviating from the flightpath for a reason that the ground
disagrees with, what happens?

 

[Mark Fergerson]

Luhan Monat wrote:

Hey, lots of brainpower in this ng. What about this...

In "Wrath of Kahn", they took back control of the Enterprise by a secret
override code known only to bridge officers.

Put this in every airliner, each with a unique and very secret code to
take control of it. Now, you just have to keep a few thousand codes
secret (1 floppy disc?) to protect the entire airline industry. This
prevents ever having to shoot down one of our own airliners.

This is just silly. I prefer the "make everybody fly butt-naked"
solution.

Mark L. Fergerson

 

[Rich Grise]

On Fri, 13 May 2005 00:12:24 -0400, Mike Monett wrote:

Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
[...]
People getting sucked out holes is a myth. There was a 747 that lost a
cargo door and a chunk of the passenger cabin wall at altitude. Other
than the poor guy whose seat was attached to the chunk of airplane that
got ripped out, nobody else went out the hole.

Nine people went through that hole:

[people sucked out of airplanes stories]

Then the answer to the hijacking problem is trivially simple: attach
the roof of the cockpit with explosive bolts. When the hijackers break
into the cockpit and start threatening the crew, blow the roof. The
hijackers will be sucked out, and everybody else should have been
belted in.

Problem solved.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Fri, 13 May 2005 15:35:48 GMT, the renowned Rich Grise
<richgrise@example.net> wrote:

On Fri, 13 May 2005 00:12:24 -0400, Mike Monett wrote:
Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
[...]
People getting sucked out holes is a myth. There was a 747 that lost a
cargo door and a chunk of the passenger cabin wall at altitude. Other
than the poor guy whose seat was attached to the chunk of airplane that
got ripped out, nobody else went out the hole.

Nine people went through that hole:

[people sucked out of airplanes stories]

Then the answer to the hijacking problem is trivially simple: attach
the roof of the cockpit with explosive bolts. When the hijackers break
into the cockpit and start threatening the crew, blow the roof. The
hijackers will be sucked out, and everybody else should have been
belted in.

Problem solved.

Cheers!
Rich

This discussion is pretty much pointless. Anyone tries to hijack a
commercial airliner these days, with anything they could get through
even pre-911 US/European security measures, will be restrained and
quite possibly beaten to death by the unarmed passengers and crew
before they can do anything. As happened a few years ago with a guy
who tried to hijack a domestic Chinese flight. The 9/11 thing only
works once, which is why they did multiples (greatly increasing the
risk of detection).


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

 

[Steve Sousa]

"Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov.> wrote in message
news:Xns9654D48F81D69jyanikkuanet@129.250.170.84...

"Steve Sousa" <etsteve@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:4283917e$0$72045$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.octanews.com:
So you have a bunch of terrorist carrying weapons, the general public
pulls theirs, so do the the marshalls, not to mention the tipical
yahoo, and you expect them all in panic to control themselves?

Why do people always think that one who goes to the trouble and expense of
obtaining a concealed carry license would be a "yahoo"? That is simply
uninformed bias.

I said the general public, *and* the yahoo, i did not meant that all the
weapon carring passenger were yahoos, i meant that when you have a large
group of people there will always be one.

--
Steve Sousa

 

[Barry Lennox]

On Fri, 13 May 2005 07:08:11 -0700, Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness>
wrote:

Luhan Monat wrote:
Hey, lots of brainpower in this ng. What about this...

In "Wrath of Kahn", they took back control of the Enterprise by a secret
override code known only to bridge officers.

Put this in every airliner, each with a unique and very secret code to
take control of it. Now, you just have to keep a few thousand codes
secret (1 floppy disc?) to protect the entire airline industry. This
prevents ever having to shoot down one of our own airliners.

This is just silly. I prefer the "make everybody fly butt-naked"
solution.

Well, that's effective, but the last several flights I have been on,
it would be cruel and unusual punishment.

More seriously, we don't need any more systems in place, locking the
cabin door, and allowing flight crew to be armed seems to as effective
as we could want.

9/11, at least in it's original form can never happen again, as an FAA
official noted: "The passengers are not likely to be co-operative"
That's an understatement of the decade. They are very likely to kick a
hijacker to death. Why the "shoebomber" (IIRC, Richard Reid?) was not
reduced to a set of body parts, I'll never understand. Flight must
have been full of social workers.

 

[Jim Yanik]

Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness> wrote in
news:cx2he.31584$fI.29862@fed1read05:

This is just silly. I prefer the "make everybody fly butt-naked"
solution.

Mark L. Fergerson

Yeah,I hope you get seated next to the obese sweaty person whose body
bulges over/around the armrest.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

 

[Jim Yanik]

Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net> wrote in
newsan.2005.05.13.15.36.46.612417@example.net:

On Fri, 13 May 2005 00:12:24 -0400, Mike Monett wrote:
Paul Hovnanian P.E. wrote:
[...]
People getting sucked out holes is a myth. There was a 747 that lost a
cargo door and a chunk of the passenger cabin wall at altitude. Other
than the poor guy whose seat was attached to the chunk of airplane that
got ripped out, nobody else went out the hole.

Nine people went through that hole:

[people sucked out of airplanes stories]

Then the answer to the hijacking problem is trivially simple: attach
the roof of the cockpit with explosive bolts. When the hijackers break
into the cockpit and start threatening the crew, blow the roof. The
hijackers will be sucked out, and everybody else should have been
belted in.

Problem solved.

Cheers!
Rich

It would be much nicer to land the airplane intact.
Especially if *I'm* on it.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

 

[Jim Yanik]

"Steve Sousa" <etsteve@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:4284dba2$0$83576$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.octanews.com:

"Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov.> wrote in message
news:Xns9654D48F81D69jyanikkuanet@129.250.170.84...
"Steve Sousa" <etsteve@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:4283917e$0$72045$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.octanews.com:
So you have a bunch of terrorist carrying weapons, the general
public pulls theirs, so do the the marshalls, not to mention the
tipical yahoo, and you expect them all in panic to control
themselves?

Why do people always think that one who goes to the trouble and
expense of obtaining a concealed carry license would be a "yahoo"?
That is simply uninformed bias.

I said the general public, *and* the yahoo, i did not meant that all
the weapon carring passenger were yahoos, i meant that when you have a
large group of people there will always be one.

"yahoo's" do not retain their concealed carry permits for very long,if they
bothered to get one in the first place.Not with poor gun handling/misuse.

And they would not be getting ON the plane without a carry permit.

Oh,and regarding holders of concealed carry licenses;their record is
EXCELLENT,extremely few are revoked for gun misuses,generally in the
hundredths of percents.34 states issue them and they all have superb
records.


I'd be far more worried about the fools who would stand up and block my
line of fire...Human shields for the bad guys.

One more thing to consider about armed passengers is that few would be in
any position to usefully shoot at hijackers.
But armed pilots will always be in the BEST position for that.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

 

[Mark Fergerson]

Jim Yanik wrote:

Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness> wrote in
news:cx2he.31584$fI.29862@fed1read05:

This is just silly. I prefer the "make everybody fly butt-naked"
solution.

Yeah,I hope you get seated next to the obese sweaty person whose body
bulges over/around the armrest.

Usually happens anyway. Sigh.

Mark L. Fergerson

 

[Rich Grise]

On Fri, 13 May 2005 18:52:21 -0700, Mark Fergerson wrote:

Jim Yanik wrote:
Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness> wrote in
news:cx2he.31584$fI.29862@fed1read05:

This is just silly. I prefer the "make everybody fly butt-naked"
solution.

Yeah,I hope you get seated next to the obese sweaty person whose body
bulges over/around the armrest.

Usually happens anyway. Sigh.

Yeah, but they're usually not naked.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[keith]

On Sat, 14 May 2005 01:18:51 +0000, Jim Yanik wrote:

"Steve Sousa" <etsteve@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:4284dba2$0$83576$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.octanews.com:

"Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov.> wrote in message
news:Xns9654D48F81D69jyanikkuanet@129.250.170.84...
"Steve Sousa" <etsteve@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:4283917e$0$72045$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.octanews.com:
So you have a bunch of terrorist carrying weapons, the general
public pulls theirs, so do the the marshalls, not to mention the
tipical yahoo, and you expect them all in panic to control
themselves?

Why do people always think that one who goes to the trouble and
expense of obtaining a concealed carry license would be a "yahoo"?
That is simply uninformed bias.

I said the general public, *and* the yahoo, i did not meant that all
the weapon carring passenger were yahoos, i meant that when you have a
large group of people there will always be one.


"yahoo's" do not retain their concealed carry permits for very long,if they
bothered to get one in the first place.Not with poor gun handling/misuse.

Some states don't need permits.

And they would not be getting ON the plane without a carry permit.

You would not allow someone from one of the above not to carry because
their state doesn't see the need (for a permit)?

Oh,and regarding holders of concealed carry licenses;their record is
EXCELLENT,extremely few are revoked for gun misuses,generally in the
hundredths of percents.34 states issue them and they all have superb
records.


I'd be far more worried about the fools who would stand up and block my
line of fire...Human shields for the bad guys.

One more thing to consider about armed passengers is that few would be
in any position to usefully shoot at hijackers. But armed pilots will
always be in the BEST position for that.

What I'd worry more about is a bad-guy taking a gun off someone with a
permit. I'd rather have the gun(s) up front so the idiot has to go
against lethal force with nothing more than stale peanuts.

--
Keith

 

[Jim Yanik]

Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness> wrote in
news:mRche.32298$fI.3890@fed1read05:

Jim Yanik wrote:
Mark Fergerson <nunya@biz.ness> wrote in
news:cx2he.31584$fI.29862@fed1read05:

This is just silly. I prefer the "make everybody fly butt-naked"
solution.

Yeah,I hope you get seated next to the obese sweaty person whose body
bulges over/around the armrest.

Usually happens anyway. Sigh.

Mark L. Fergerson

At least they are not "butt-naked" currently.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

 

[Jim Yanik]

keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in
newsan.2005.05.14.16.27.31.808272@att.bizzzz:

On Sat, 14 May 2005 01:18:51 +0000, Jim Yanik wrote:

"Steve Sousa" <etsteve@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:4284dba2$0$83576$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.octanews.com:

"Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov.> wrote in message
news:Xns9654D48F81D69jyanikkuanet@129.250.170.84...
"Steve Sousa" <etsteve@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:4283917e$0$72045$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.octanews.com:
So you have a bunch of terrorist carrying weapons, the general
public pulls theirs, so do the the marshalls, not to mention the
tipical yahoo, and you expect them all in panic to control
themselves?

Why do people always think that one who goes to the trouble and
expense of obtaining a concealed carry license would be a "yahoo"?
That is simply uninformed bias.

I said the general public, *and* the yahoo, i did not meant that all
the weapon carring passenger were yahoos, i meant that when you have
a large group of people there will always be one.


"yahoo's" do not retain their concealed carry permits for very
long,if they bothered to get one in the first place.Not with poor gun
handling/misuse.

Some states don't need permits.

Vermont and Alaska.

And they would not be getting ON the plane without a carry permit.

You would not allow someone from one of the above not to carry because
their state doesn't see the need (for a permit)?

They have not had any criminal background check,nor have they proof of
taking any firearms training of any sort.

Oh,and regarding holders of concealed carry licenses;their record is
EXCELLENT,extremely few are revoked for gun misuses,generally in the
hundredths of percents.34 states issue them and they all have superb
records.


I'd be far more worried about the fools who would stand up and block
my line of fire...Human shields for the bad guys.

One more thing to consider about armed passengers is that few would
be in any position to usefully shoot at hijackers. But armed pilots
will always be in the BEST position for that.

What I'd worry more about is a bad-guy taking a gun off someone with a
permit.

How would they know a perons is carrying a CONCEALED handgun?
Pat the guy next to you down?

I'd rather have the gun(s) up front so the idiot has to go
against lethal force with nothing more than stale peanuts.

Well,even today there's no assurance that a person cannot bring a handgun
onboard;it's already happened twice that I know about,*besides* the LEO's
who left their handguns on the seat and deplaned.


(LEO=law enforcement officer)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

 

[keith]

On Sat, 14 May 2005 17:08:10 +0000, Jim Yanik wrote:

keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in
newsan.2005.05.14.16.27.31.808272@att.bizzzz:

On Sat, 14 May 2005 01:18:51 +0000, Jim Yanik wrote:

"Steve Sousa" <etsteve@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:4284dba2$0$83576$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.octanews.com:

"Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov.> wrote in message
news:Xns9654D48F81D69jyanikkuanet@129.250.170.84...
"Steve Sousa" <etsteve@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:4283917e$0$72045$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.octanews.com:
So you have a bunch of terrorist carrying weapons, the general
public pulls theirs, so do the the marshalls, not to mention the
tipical yahoo, and you expect them all in panic to control
themselves?

Why do people always think that one who goes to the trouble and
expense of obtaining a concealed carry license would be a "yahoo"?
That is simply uninformed bias.

I said the general public, *and* the yahoo, i did not meant that all
the weapon carring passenger were yahoos, i meant that when you have
a large group of people there will always be one.


"yahoo's" do not retain their concealed carry permits for very
long,if they bothered to get one in the first place.Not with poor gun
handling/misuse.

Some states don't need permits.

Vermont and Alaska.

Yes, I live in Vermont where I don't need no steenkin' permit.
Unfortunately, unlike Alaska, they don't issue one if I wanted one either.

And they would not be getting ON the plane without a carry permit.

You would not allow someone from one of the above not to carry because
their state doesn't see the need (for a permit)?

They have not had any criminal background check,nor have they proof of
taking any firearms training of any sort.

Background check, yes (required for purchase). Training, no. Perhaps you
think one should have to have anti-terrorist training to carry where there
may be terrorists?

Oh,and regarding holders of concealed carry licenses;their record is
EXCELLENT,extremely few are revoked for gun misuses,generally in the
hundredths of percents.34 states issue them and they all have superb
records.


I'd be far more worried about the fools who would stand up and block
my line of fire...Human shields for the bad guys.

One more thing to consider about armed passengers is that few would be
in any position to usefully shoot at hijackers. But armed pilots will
always be in the BEST position for that.

What I'd worry more about is a bad-guy taking a gun off someone with a
permit.

How would they know a perons is carrying a CONCEALED handgun? Pat the
guy next to you down?

It's often obvious. See the "Air Marshalls" sub-thread. Security by
obscurity, and all that.

I'd rather have the gun(s) up front so the idiot has to go against
lethal force with nothing more than stale peanuts.


Well,even today there's no assurance that a person cannot bring a
handgun onboard;it's already happened twice that I know about,*besides*
the LEO's who left their handguns on the seat and deplaned.

True, but it is rare. Far more have been caught; enough that it's not a
viable strategy for the bad guys. I'd still rather have the bad-guys in
the back had only peanuts to throw, while the good-guys in the front had
very much faster projectiles to respond with. Crash the cockpit and
you're dead. No questions asked - metal awarded.

(LEO=law enforcement officer)

Understood.

--
Keith

 

[Jim Yanik]

keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in
newsan.2005.05.14.17.29.22.71870@att.bizzzz:

On Sat, 14 May 2005 17:08:10 +0000, Jim Yanik wrote:

keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in
newsan.2005.05.14.16.27.31.808272@att.bizzzz:

On Sat, 14 May 2005 01:18:51 +0000, Jim Yanik wrote:

"Steve Sousa" <etsteve@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:4284dba2$0$83576$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.octanews.com:

"Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov.> wrote in message
news:Xns9654D48F81D69jyanikkuanet@129.250.170.84...
"Steve Sousa" <etsteve@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:4283917e$0$72045$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.octanews.com:
So you have a bunch of terrorist carrying weapons, the general
public pulls theirs, so do the the marshalls, not to mention the
tipical yahoo, and you expect them all in panic to control
themselves?

Why do people always think that one who goes to the trouble and
expense of obtaining a concealed carry license would be a
"yahoo"? That is simply uninformed bias.

I said the general public, *and* the yahoo, i did not meant that
all the weapon carring passenger were yahoos, i meant that when
you have a large group of people there will always be one.


"yahoo's" do not retain their concealed carry permits for very
long,if they bothered to get one in the first place.Not with poor
gun handling/misuse.

Some states don't need permits.

Vermont and Alaska.

Yes, I live in Vermont where I don't need no steenkin' permit.
Unfortunately, unlike Alaska, they don't issue one if I wanted one
either.

I guess Alaska saw where Vermont fell short and provided for that.Good for
them. You could/should press your state reps for such a change in your law.
Does Vermont have any sort of process to allow citizens to enact laws
directly by referendum? That might be one manner for success.

And they would not be getting ON the plane without a carry permit.

You would not allow someone from one of the above not to carry
because their state doesn't see the need (for a permit)?

They have not had any criminal background check,nor have they proof
of taking any firearms training of any sort.

Background check, yes (required for purchase). Training, no. Perhaps
you think one should have to have anti-terrorist training to carry
where there may be terrorists?

Those who get a state concealed carry permit generally get some level of
training in the pertinent LAW and when self-defense is permitted.I do not
refer to actual firearms training,but when,where and how lethal force can
be used legally.

It would be nice if citizens -could- take a course to learn how to defend
in aircraft cabins,what NOT to do,etc.

Oh,and regarding holders of concealed carry licenses;their record
is EXCELLENT,extremely few are revoked for gun misuses,generally in
the hundredths of percents.34 states issue them and they all have
superb records.


I'd be far more worried about the fools who would stand up and
block my line of fire...Human shields for the bad guys.

One more thing to consider about armed passengers is that few would
be in any position to usefully shoot at hijackers. But armed pilots
will always be in the BEST position for that.

What I'd worry more about is a bad-guy taking a gun off someone with
a permit.

How would they know a perons is carrying a CONCEALED handgun? Pat the
guy next to you down?

It's often obvious. See the "Air Marshalls" sub-thread. Security by
obscurity, and all that.

I'd rather have the gun(s) up front so the idiot has to go against
lethal force with nothing more than stale peanuts.


Well,even today there's no assurance that a person cannot bring a
handgun onboard;it's already happened twice that I know
about,*besides* the LEO's who left their handguns on the seat and
deplaned.

True, but it is rare. Far more have been caught; enough that it's not
a viable strategy for the bad guys.

I don't believe that;they certainly could arrange to smuggle guns in thru
the cabin cleaners and other work grouops that have access to the aircraft.

I'd still rather have the
bad-guys in the back had only peanuts to throw, while the good-guys in
the front had very much faster projectiles to respond with. Crash the
cockpit and you're dead. No questions asked - metal awarded.

(LEO=law enforcement officer)

Understood.

Oh,I agree that pilots should be armed first.It's the most practical and
MOST likely to happen,if TSA would get their heads out of their rectums.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

 

[Roger Johansson]

Aeroplanes should be divided into sections by walls very difficult to
get through, it should take explosives, and we have good sniffer
dogs/machines xray etc to find explosives at the airports.

Video cameras in all sections can be monitored in the cockpit.
The security expert, the third man in cockpit, is checking up what is
happening in all sections.

If one section is threatened by terrorists he can release safe but
immediately working sleep gas in that section.

The passengers are not allowed to take anything into the passenger
sections which is not needed there. No hand luggage, maybe a book or a
pocket computer, glasses, a magazine, etc.. Every object is to be
examined before passengers are allowed into the plane.
Including objects in the clothes, in pockets, etc..

A terrorist could only use fighting methods without weapons.

If he is alone he has 50 people in the same section to get under
control. Not so easy when the others are fighting for their lives and
have absolutely nothing to lose. Whatever he wants to do he needs to
get it done within a few seconds, before the security guy turns on the
sleeping gas.

We could find a way to test people's reflexes, and find the potentially
dangerous passengers, and maybe treat them differently somehow.
People who are prepared and trained for fight react differently to
different situations than "non-fighters".

The suggestions above would not cost much, when we consider factors
like space in the plane, the weight of the plane, etc.. Slightly
thicker and heavier wall between sections would not cost so much.

In some planes there is only space for two pilots in cockpit. The we
should put the security guy in a small section behind cockpit, behind a
strong wall, and maybe armed with more tools than sleep gas.

Terrorists would have to take him first to get to cockpit. And he can
put any section of the aeroplane to sleep whenever he needs to.


--
Roger J.

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On 14 May 2005 23:37:13 GMT, the renowned Jim Yanik
<jyanik@abuse.gov.> wrote:

It would be nice if citizens -could- take a course to learn how to defend
in aircraft cabins,what NOT to do,etc.

You'd save a LOT more lives by getting people to take courses to get
off their fat asses to avoid getting DVT during their flight.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com