OT:Prevent Airline Hijacking

[Ken Smith]

In article <xn0e29km3cdwdv200i@news.sunsite.dk>,
Roger Johansson <no-email@no.invalid> wrote:

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.

$$$$ too many $$$$

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

Just use that gas at the get go and then the people could be just stacked
on like cordwood. It would save a lot of time and money.


Airplanes = the barns the horse have already left. The next attack is
likely to be something else.


--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[keith]

On Sat, 14 May 2005 23:37:13 +0000, Jim Yanik wrote:

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.

Yes, I would like the option, though I don't think it should be necessary
(given "full faith and credit"). The other problem is that I cannot carry
in reciprocal states either, since I have no permit (see above).

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.

You *must* be kidding! Petition and referendum is unkown in the East,
where big brother knows better than you. The only reason the leftists
(who do run the government here) haven't banned guns completely is that
they'd be sent back to New Jersey on a pike.

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.

I would have no issue with this, nor any reasonable training. With
"reasonable" being the key word. Often "training" is the impediment used
to deny rights.

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

I don't think that's useful at all. ...other than to "cover your stupid
ass!"

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;

Many more have been caught attempting to carry a fireadm onboard than have
been found later. Most were *stupid* mistakes, but the fact is that
*many* more have been found by security before than after.

they certainly could arrange to smuggle guns in
thru the cabin cleaners and other work grouops that have access to the
aircraft.

This is certainly possible, but so is getting struck by a meteor.
Security isn't monolithic. Your bogeyman takes a lot of planning, which
is easily thwarted.

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.

I have no argument there. I just don't see any gain in arming the back
end of the aircraft, including the air marshals.

--
Keith

 

[Richard Henry]

"Spehro Pefhany" <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote in message
news:jsj98155ov3q1iohj2ctncrpi8qskecfcm@4ax.com...

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).

On 9-12-01, we had a pre-scheduled meeting with a few SF types who were in
to check the status of equipment we were developing for them. They
suggested that every adult passenger be issued a low-power, single-shot
pistol when boarding the plane. In case of trouble, majority rules.

 

[keith]

On Sun, 15 May 2005 05:22:31 +0100, Pooh Bear wrote:

keith wrote:

I have no argument there. I just don't see any gain in arming the back
end of the aircraft, including the air marshals.

I thought your 'air marshals' - lol - rode first ?

I haven no idea why you think "air marshal" is so funny. Try breaking
into the cockpit, even with that SEG on your face.

--
Keith

 

[Pooh Bear]

keith wrote:

I have no argument there. I just don't see any gain in arming the back
end of the aircraft, including the air marshals.

I thought your 'air marshals' - lol - rode first ?

Graham

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Sat, 14 May 2005 20:59:16 -0700, the renowned "Richard Henry"
<rphenry@home.com> wrote:

"Spehro Pefhany" <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote in message
news:jsj98155ov3q1iohj2ctncrpi8qskecfcm@4ax.com...

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).

On 9-12-01, we had a pre-scheduled meeting with a few SF types who were in
to check the status of equipment we were developing for them. They
suggested that every adult passenger be issued a low-power, single-shot
pistol when boarding the plane. In case of trouble, majority rules.

Hilarious. With all the irritating stuff involved with airplanes, it
would only be matter of time before some airliner starting off with
ordinary folks lands with only a single mortally-wounded passenger
still breathing. And not a hijacker to be seen. ;-)


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

 

[Pooh Bear]

Jim Yanik wrote:

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.

Actually it's pretty impractical. If you're flying an aircraft and someone
busts in through the door how long is going to take you ( the pilot ) to find
your weapon - take if off safety and do anything with it ?

Too long to be of any value.

Don't you guys have metal detectors over there ?

Graham

 

[Pooh Bear]

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

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.

But then the airlines would have to accept it's a problem which they're
reluctant to do especially since seat pitch is a related issue.

Take an aspirin before flight.

I always used to take a stroll over few hours or so on long haul. I've vaguely
wondered if that would attract the wrong kind of attention on a US carrier.


Graham

 

[Pooh Bear]

Roger Johansson wrote:

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

a) There is no such thing as " immediately working sleep gas " ( sic )

b) All such gases affect ppl in different doses so you 'll end up with so
many dead pax if you want to be sure of putting everyone out.

What a load of crap.

Graham

 

[Roger Johansson]

Pooh Bear wrote:

b) All such gases affect ppl in different doses so you 'll end up
with so many dead pax if you want to be sure of putting everyone out.

It would be a lot easier to control dosage and ventilation systems
aboard an aeroplane than it was in a Moscow Theatre.


--
Roger J.

 

[Ken Taylor]

"Roger Johansson" <no-email@no.invalid> wrote in message
news:xn0e29ua3cr0y0p000@news.sunsite.dk...

Pooh Bear wrote:

b) All such gases affect ppl in different doses so you 'll end up
with so many dead pax if you want to be sure of putting everyone out.

It would be a lot easier to control dosage and ventilation systems
aboard an aeroplane than it was in a Moscow Theatre.


--
Roger J.

Particularly if you tell your medics what they'll be treating.

Ken

 

[Pooh Bear]

keith wrote:

On Sun, 15 May 2005 05:22:31 +0100, Pooh Bear wrote:


keith wrote:

I have no argument there. I just don't see any gain in arming the back
end of the aircraft, including the air marshals.

I thought your 'air marshals' - lol - rode first ?

I haven no idea why you think "air marshal" is so funny. Try breaking
into the cockpit, even with that SEG on your face.

Well - you're the only country in the world to have ' air marshals ' (
although El Al has enhanced security and passenger 'screening ' ) - kinda
sounds a bit wild west to me - yet it helped not one bit on 9/11.

Air marshals are a bit like trying to shut the stable door after the horse has
bolted don't you think ?

Never mind the US firearms obsession.

Graham

 

[Pooh Bear]

Roger Johansson wrote:

Pooh Bear wrote:

b) All such gases affect ppl in different doses so you 'll end up
with so many dead pax if you want to be sure of putting everyone out.

It would be a lot easier to control dosage and ventilation systems
aboard an aeroplane than it was in a Moscow Theatre.

You're missing the point. Re-read what I said which had nothing to do with
that farce in Moscow.

Graham

 

[Frank Bemelman]

"Roger Johansson" <no-email@no.invalid> schreef in bericht
news:xn0e29km3cdwdv200i@news.sunsite.dk...

[snip]

Brilliant! Let's do the same for trains, busses, movietheaters,
restaurants, hospitals!

--
Thanks, Frank.
(remove 'q' and 'invalid' when replying by email)

 

[keith]

On Sun, 15 May 2005 07:52:28 +0100, Pooh Bear wrote:

keith wrote:

On Sun, 15 May 2005 05:22:31 +0100, Pooh Bear wrote:


keith wrote:

I have no argument there. I just don't see any gain in arming the back
end of the aircraft, including the air marshals.

I thought your 'air marshals' - lol - rode first ?

I haven no idea why you think "air marshal" is so funny. Try breaking
into the cockpit, even with that SEG on your face.

Well - you're the only country in the world to have ' air marshals ' (
although El Al has enhanced security and passenger 'screening ' ) - kinda
sounds a bit wild west to me - yet it helped not one bit on 9/11.

There were no marshals on the planes in question.

Air marshals are a bit like trying to shut the stable door after the horse has
bolted don't you think ?

It's certainly not my choice of deterrents. Primarily because it's
expensive. A Glock in the cockpit is far cheaper, though politically
correct.

Never mind the US firearms obsession.

Nothing at all wrong with firearms in the hands of honest citizens. 'Tis
better than jailing the homeowner because some perp broke in. The perp
should be having his hair done for the last time and a medal pinned on the
homeowner.

--
Keith

--
Keith

 

[keith]

On Sun, 15 May 2005 05:26:30 +0100, Pooh Bear wrote:

Jim Yanik wrote:

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.

Actually it's pretty impractical. If you're flying an aircraft and someone
busts in through the door how long is going to take you ( the pilot ) to find
your weapon - take if off safety and do anything with it ?

Too long to be of any value.

Nonsense. Breaking into the cockpit isn't instantaneous. Any mayhem will
be noticed long before anyone gets close to the cockpit.

Don't you guys have metal detectors over there ?

What are you looking for? A rolled up bill is deadly in the right hands,
but I don't think your fancy technology is going to tell one from the
other.

--
Keith

 

[Pooh Bear]

keith wrote:

On Sun, 15 May 2005 07:52:28 +0100, Pooh Bear wrote:

Well - you're the only country in the world to have ' air marshals ' (
although El Al has enhanced security and passenger 'screening ' ) - kinda
sounds a bit wild west to me - yet it helped not one bit on 9/11.

There were no marshals on the planes in question.

That's just the point. Just consider how many you'd have to employ to have one on
every single flight. Ergo not a practical answer.

Graham

 

[keith]

On Sun, 15 May 2005 16:36:07 +0100, Pooh Bear wrote:

keith wrote:

On Sun, 15 May 2005 07:52:28 +0100, Pooh Bear wrote:

Well - you're the only country in the world to have ' air marshals ' (
although El Al has enhanced security and passenger 'screening ' ) - kinda
sounds a bit wild west to me - yet it helped not one bit on 9/11.

There were no marshals on the planes in question.

That's just the point. Just consider how many you'd have to employ to have one on
every single flight. Ergo not a practical answer.

At the time they were used only to prevent scenic tours of Havana. There
was no need seen to have them on "every flight" to be effective. Since...
I'd agree, political correctness dictates a $150K/yr solution over a $700
Glock in the cockpit.

--
Keith

 

[Jim Yanik]

kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote in
news:d664nk$7fg$1@blue.rahul.net:

In article <xn0e29km3cdwdv200i@news.sunsite.dk>,
Roger Johansson <no-email@no.invalid> wrote:
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.

$$$$ too many $$$$

Yes,the cost of re-engineering all the commercial aircraft would not be
practical.

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

No such thing. And any drug or gas affects different people differently,at
different rates.Small people,children,elderly,and ill people are affected
first.Many passengers would die.

Just use that gas at the get go and then the people could be just
stacked on like cordwood. It would save a lot of time and money.


Airplanes = the barns the horse have already left. The next attack is
likely to be something else.

Cargo jets;no passengers or Sky Marshals to fight back,just as much
size,fuel and speed as a big passenger jet.And guarded less than passenger
flights.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

 

[Jim Yanik]

Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote in
news:edjd81pbr30i247h81g7u920o6o6es0nm8@4ax.com:

On Sat, 14 May 2005 20:59:16 -0700, the renowned "Richard Henry"
rphenry@home.com> wrote:


"Spehro Pefhany" <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote in message
news:jsj98155ov3q1iohj2ctncrpi8qskecfcm@4ax.com...

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).

On 9-12-01, we had a pre-scheduled meeting with a few SF types who
were in to check the status of equipment we were developing for them.
They suggested that every adult passenger be issued a low-power,
single-shot pistol when boarding the plane. In case of trouble,
majority rules.

Hilarious. With all the irritating stuff involved with airplanes, it
would only be matter of time before some airliner starting off with
ordinary folks lands with only a single mortally-wounded passenger
still breathing. And not a hijacker to be seen. ;-)


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

You have such a low opinion of people.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net