OT:Prevent Airline Hijacking

[Pooh Bear]

keith wrote:

You limp-wristed euro-pricks hate guns, so they cannot be the answer to any problem.

We don't actually hate guns. I've done a little rifle shooting on a range actually.

What we don't like are needless gun deaths - which the USA has in abundance. That's
what happens when you have virtually uncontolled access to lethal weapons. A gun has
no other use than to kill or main !

Just look at the data !

Graham

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <slrnd8o2tv.kkl.don@manx.misty.com>,
Don Klipstein <don@manx.misty.com> wrote:
[...]

airlines should disobey their bean counters and rip out the front row of
seats and install double wall and door cockpit barriers made with maybe
3/8 inch 6061 aluminum alloy (or whatever is necessary to not be breakable
if kicked by a 300 pound kickboxer training to damage heavy inanimate
objects).

Well designed things made from 1/8th 6061 would be imposible for an
unarmed human to get through. Adding a layer of LCP or Vectran cloth
would make it so that even an armed person would not get through.

The attacker only has limited time to act. Once the element of surprise is
gone, the pilot can nose-up-push-over-nose-up-push-over the hijacker to
death.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Richard the Dreaded Liber]

On Thu, 19 May 2005 07:36:27 +0100, Pooh Bear wrote:

keith wrote:

You limp-wristed euro-pricks hate guns, so they cannot be the answer to
any problem.

We don't actually hate guns. I've done a little rifle shooting on a range
actually.

What we don't like are needless gun deaths - which the USA has in
abundance. That's what happens when you have virtually uncontolled access
to lethal weapons. A gun has no other use than to kill or main !

Just look at the data !

Well, you might not like the data that shows that when guns are freely

available to citizens, the crime rate plummets, like, for example, Florida.

And if "death rate" is your criterion, obviously automobiles are the
most deadly things humans have ever used, except for the military, of
course.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[keith]

On Thu, 19 May 2005 07:36:27 +0100, Pooh Bear wrote:

keith wrote:

You limp-wristed euro-pricks hate guns, so they cannot be the answer to any problem.

We don't actually hate guns. I've done a little rifle shooting on a range actually.

Yeah, right. That's why your government is confiscating them left and
left (you no longer have anything to the right of left).

What we don't like are needless gun deaths - which the USA has in
abundance. That's what happens when you have virtually uncontolled
access to lethal weapons. A gun has no other use than to kill or main !

"Needless"? You're wrong, once again. We need *more*. Those that use
guns offensively need to have them stuffed up their nose and
have their brain discharged.

Just look at the data !

I woish you would! Gun ownership makes the *entire* crime rair drop like
a rock. Those areas with the most liberal gun laws are, not
coincidentally, the same areas with the lowest crime rate, including
murder by gun. The state I live in has _no_ gun carry laws and one of the
lowest crime rates in the 50. Go figure your data again.

--

Keith

 

[keith]

On Thu, 19 May 2005 14:05:06 +0000, Ken Smith wrote:

In article <slrnd8o2tv.kkl.don@manx.misty.com>,
Don Klipstein <don@manx.misty.com> wrote:
[...]
airlines should disobey their bean counters and rip out the front row of
seats and install double wall and door cockpit barriers made with maybe
3/8 inch 6061 aluminum alloy (or whatever is necessary to not be breakable
if kicked by a 300 pound kickboxer training to damage heavy inanimate
objects).

Well designed things made from 1/8th 6061 would be imposible for an
unarmed human to get through. Adding a layer of LCP or Vectran cloth
would make it so that even an armed person would not get through.

It would also tend to keep the pilot's bullets from making a mess in
first class. I like it!

The attacker only has limited time to act. Once the element of surprise
is gone, the pilot can nose-up-push-over-nose-up-push-over the hijacker
to death.

I'd rather two-to-the-hat. Airliners aren't known tfor their stunt flying
capabilities.

--
Keith

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <pan.2005.05.20.02.29.15.835366@att.bizzzz>,
keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
[...]

I'd rather two-to-the-hat. Airliners aren't known tfor their stunt flying
capabilities.

If the pilot is to do that, a door or port has to be opened and the pilot
has to leave his seat. I'd prefer neither of these happen.


Modern air craft can easily stand -0.5G to +1.5G swings but people walking
around can't.
--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Pooh Bear]

keith wrote:

On Thu, 19 May 2005 07:36:27 +0100, Pooh Bear wrote:


keith wrote:

You limp-wristed euro-pricks hate guns, so they cannot be the answer to any problem.

We don't actually hate guns. I've done a little rifle shooting on a range actually.

Yeah, right. That's why your government is confiscating them left and
left (you no longer have anything to the right of left).

The government does not *confiscate* them.

Your view of politics is hardly relelvant to the issue.

Every few years there is often here an 'amnesty' for illegally held weapons. The last one a
few yrs back resulted in some 45,000 or so guns being surrendered.

Firearms may be held legally - for example farmers may need shotguns for pest control and
they are used for recreational hunting ( not that we have much call for that ). These
weapons have to be kept safely locked up however when not in use.

What we don't like are needless gun deaths - which the USA has in
abundance. That's what happens when you have virtually uncontolled
access to lethal weapons. A gun has no other use than to kill or main !

"Needless"? You're wrong, once again. We need *more*. Those that use
guns offensively need to have them stuffed up their nose and
have their brain discharged.

We avoid that to the greater part by simply ensuring that it's difficult to acquire a gun.

It's been *so* effective that some criminals have recently had to resort to machining
replicas in order to make them function.

Just look at the data !

I woish you would! Gun ownership makes the *entire* crime rair drop like
a rock. Those areas with the most liberal gun laws are, not
coincidentally, the same areas with the lowest crime rate, including
murder by gun. The state I live in has _no_ gun carry laws and one of the
lowest crime rates in the 50. Go figure your data again.

So how does the USA have the highest gun death rate in the developed world then ?

What you're suggesting is that 'reactive' measures work - there may be some truth in that
in your situation where you have a country saturated with guns.

We however go for *proactive* measures.

No normal person *needs* a gun ! Guns are for killing.

" ATLANTA -- The United States has by far the highest rate of gun deaths -- murders,
suicides and accidents -- among the world's 36 richest nations, a government study found.
The U.S. rate for gun deaths in 1994 was 14.24 per 100,000 people. Japan had the lowest
rate, at .05 per 100,000. ...................

The CDC would not speculate why the death rates varied, but other researchers said easy
access to guns and society's acceptance of violence are part of the problem in the United
States.
``If you have a country saturated with guns -- available to people when they are
intoxicated, angry or depressed -- it's not unusual guns will be used more often, ''

http://www.guncite.com/cnngunde.html


Graham

 

[Fred Abse]

On Sun, 15 May 2005 00:22:05 -0400, keith wrote:

I haven no idea why you think "air marshal" is so funny.

I think Pooh Bear is British.

Air Marshal is, IIRC a _very_ senior rank in the British Royal Air Force,
something like a three-star General.

--
"Electricity is of two kinds, positive and negative. The difference
is, I presume, that one comes a little more expensive, but is more
durable; the other is a cheaper thing, but the moths get into it."
(Stephen Leacock)

 

[keith]

On Sat, 21 May 2005 15:14:51 +0100, Fred Abse wrote:

On Sun, 15 May 2005 00:22:05 -0400, keith wrote:

I haven no idea why you think "air marshal" is so funny.

I think Pooh Bear is British.

Yes, I believe you're right.

Air Marshal is, IIRC a _very_ senior rank in the British Royal Air Force,
something like a three-star General.

Ah, I hadn't considered the UKUS issues. A "marshal" here is, of course,
a federally appointed officer of the law (though usually reporting to the
court/correctional system). Then again, we did adopt the "homeland"
(stupid) name.

--
Keith

 

[keith]

On Fri, 20 May 2005 09:31:20 +0100, Pooh Bear wrote:

keith wrote:

On Thu, 19 May 2005 07:36:27 +0100, Pooh Bear wrote:


keith wrote:

You limp-wristed euro-pricks hate guns, so they cannot be the answer to any problem.

We don't actually hate guns. I've done a little rifle shooting on a range actually.

Yeah, right. That's why your government is confiscating them left and
left (you no longer have anything to the right of left).

The government does not *confiscate* them.

Your view of politics is hardly relelvant to the issue.

Ah, *my* politics don't matter, but yours do. Sorry ol' chap, but you're
a loser Brit. You just re-elected Tony, so don't lecture us about
politics! ;-)

Every few years there is often here an 'amnesty' for illegally held
weapons. The last one a few yrs back resulted in some 45,000 or so guns
being surrendered.

Ah, they're not "confiscated", but are illegal to own so you have to hand
them in. Every so often they offer to let you hand them over without
being thrown innto the cooler. Isn't that so nice?

Firearms may be held legally - for example farmers may need shotguns for pest control and
they are used for recreational hunting ( not that we have much call for that ). These
weapons have to be kept safely locked up however when not in use.

What? Rimfire .22's? Wow! You can kill pests in the garden, but not those
coming into your bedroom. Isn't that just so nice of your fine government.

What we don't like are needless gun deaths - which the USA has in
abundance. That's what happens when you have virtually uncontolled
access to lethal weapons. A gun has no other use than to kill or main
!

"Needless"? You're wrong, once again. We need *more*. Those that use
guns offensively need to have them stuffed up their nose and have their
brain discharged.

We avoid that to the greater part by simply ensuring that it's difficult
to acquire a gun.

Please. Guns are not difficult to find anywhere. Of course they're a
little harder in, say, Singapore where they cane people for chewing gum.

It's been *so* effective that some criminals have recently had to resort
to machining replicas in order to make them function.

Oh, so they're not hard to come by? I thought you folks had figured out
the obvious long before this.

Just look at the data !

I woish you would! Gun ownership makes the *entire* crime rair drop
like a rock. Those areas with the most liberal gun laws are, not
coincidentally, the same areas with the lowest crime rate, including
murder by gun. The state I live in has _no_ gun carry laws and one of
the lowest crime rates in the 50. Go figure your data again.

So how does the USA have the highest gun death rate in the developed
world then ?

Why do the *highest* death rates happen where guns are illegal and the
lowest where they are perfectly legal? Answer please! Why are more
defended by guns every year than used in the commission of a crime? Come
one, you mus thave an answer for this too.

What you're suggesting is that 'reactive' measures work - there may be
some truth in that in your situation where you have a country saturated
with guns.

Nonsense. THere is no "saturation". Where there is a presense of guns
the crime rate is right next to (or lower than) yours. Where they're
illegal, only the criminals have them and tend to use them.
....fortunately, often against each other (witch figures into your silly
"numbers").

We however go for *proactive* measures.

S/proactive/regressive/

No normal person *needs* a gun ! Guns are for killing.

Mine have killed a lot of paper, true. I'd like to kill a few crows,
true. If you walk into my house unnanounced, I'd rather that you were
dead than I, true. I don't keep my guns loaded because I live in a very
safe area. ...not coincidentally because it is the *most* liberal place
to own a gun.

" ATLANTA -- The United States has by far the highest rate of gun
deaths -- murders, suicides and accidents -- among the world's 36
richest nations, a government study found.
The U.S. rate for gun deaths in 1994 was 14.24 per 100,000 people.
Japan had the lowest
rate, at .05 per 100,000. ...................

Ok, now look at it by state and city. Now look at those states/cities
where guns are legal. Now look at those areas where they've *just* become
legal. You will find a trend there. You won't like the answer though.
The fact is that bad guys have guns (yes, even in ol' England). Taking
them away from the ordinary citizens is a bad move.

The CDC would not speculate why the death rates varied, but
other
researchers said easy
access to guns and society's acceptance of violence are part of the
problem in the United States.
``If you have a country saturated with guns -- available to people
when they are
intoxicated, angry or depressed -- it's not unusual guns will be used
more often, ''

Gee, that doesn't seem to work out in reality. Depression is all about,
indeed it's worse here than in many places (alcoholism is very high), but
deaths by guns aren't.

http://www.guncite.com/cnngunde.html

....and who is behind the site?

--
Keith

 

[keith]

On Fri, 20 May 2005 02:57:20 +0000, Ken Smith wrote:

In article <pan.2005.05.20.02.29.15.835366@att.bizzzz>,
keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
[...]
I'd rather two-to-the-hat. Airliners aren't known tfor their stunt flying
capabilities.

If the pilot is to do that, a door or port has to be opened and the pilot
has to leave his seat. I'd prefer neither of these happen.

There are at least two. If one has to leave his seat to kill the bad guy,
so be it. But since the perp has to actually enter the cockpit to take
control, it's a good thing to shoot him there.

Modern air craft can easily stand -0.5G to +1.5G swings but people
walking around can't.

That may be (though it's not something that is done), though I don't think
the food-service carts in the aisles would do kind things to the rest of
the passengers. I'd prefer to just kill the perps.

--
Keith

 

[Jim Yanik]

keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in
newsan.2005.05.22.03.19.44.702020@att.bizzzz:

On Fri, 20 May 2005 09:31:20 +0100, Pooh Bear wrote:

keith wrote:

On Thu, 19 May 2005 07:36:27 +0100, Pooh Bear wrote:


keith wrote:

You limp-wristed euro-pricks hate guns, so they cannot be the
answer to any problem.

We don't actually hate guns. I've done a little rifle shooting on
a range actually.

Yeah, right. That's why your government is confiscating them left
and left (you no longer have anything to the right of left).

The government does not *confiscate* them.

Your view of politics is hardly relelvant to the issue.

Ah, *my* politics don't matter, but yours do. Sorry ol' chap, but
you're a loser Brit. You just re-elected Tony, so don't lecture us
about politics! ;-)

Every few years there is often here an 'amnesty' for illegally held
weapons. The last one a few yrs back resulted in some 45,000 or so
guns being surrendered.

Ah, they're not "confiscated", but are illegal to own so you have to
hand them in. Every so often they offer to let you hand them over
without being thrown innto the cooler. Isn't that so nice?

Firearms may be held legally - for example farmers may need shotguns
for pest control and they are used for recreational hunting ( not
that we have much call for that ). These weapons have to be kept
safely locked up however when not in use.

What? Rimfire .22's? Wow! You can kill pests in the garden, but not
those coming into your bedroom. Isn't that just so nice of your fine
government.

What we don't like are needless gun deaths - which the USA has in
abundance. That's what happens when you have virtually uncontolled
access to lethal weapons. A gun has no other use than to kill or
main !

"Needless"? You're wrong, once again. We need *more*. Those that
use guns offensively need to have them stuffed up their nose and
have their brain discharged.

We avoid that to the greater part by simply ensuring that it's
difficult to acquire a gun.

Please. Guns are not difficult to find anywhere. Of course they're a
little harder in, say, Singapore where they cane people for chewing
gum.

It's been *so* effective that some criminals have recently had to
resort to machining replicas in order to make them function.

Oh, so they're not hard to come by? I thought you folks had figured
out the obvious long before this.

The UK Home Office has said they believe there are more than 3 million
illegal guns in the UK.

I don't know if that includes the arms caches that some IRA sects refuse to
surrender.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <pan.2005.05.22.03.23.18.357239@att.bizzzz>,
keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 20 May 2005 02:57:20 +0000, Ken Smith wrote:

In article <pan.2005.05.20.02.29.15.835366@att.bizzzz>,
keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
[...]
I'd rather two-to-the-hat. Airliners aren't known tfor their stunt flying
capabilities.

If the pilot is to do that, a door or port has to be opened and the pilot
has to leave his seat. I'd prefer neither of these happen.

There are at least two. If one has to leave his seat to kill the bad guy,
so be it. But since the perp has to actually enter the cockpit to take
control, it's a good thing to shoot him there.

Where do you want him shot? Do you mean he has to get into the cockpit
before he gets shot. This sounds like a very bad idea.

Modern air craft can easily stand -0.5G to +1.5G swings but people
walking around can't.

That may be (though it's not something that is done),

Actually it is done.


--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Steve Sousa]

"Mike Monett" <no@spam.com> wrote in message news:42842928.7D7E@spam.com...

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

I've seen other discussions were it was claimed that the door on a
presurized aircraft can't be opened by design, that being the main mechanism
to avoid a crazed or claustrofobic passenger opening it in flight?
Can someone provide a definitive answer, maybe the person who had a relative
who was a pilot?

--
Steve Sousa

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Sun, 22 May 2005 17:44:54 +0100, the renowned "Steve Sousa"
<etsteve@yahoo.com> wrote:

"Mike Monett" <no@spam.com> wrote in message news:42842928.7D7E@spam.com...
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

I've seen other discussions were it was claimed that the door on a
presurized aircraft can't be opened by design, that being the main mechanism
to avoid a crazed or claustrofobic passenger opening it in flight?
Can someone provide a definitive answer, maybe the person who had a relative
who was a pilot?

Yes, normally, AFAIUI. But things were not normal in this case. Here's
the NTSB brief on that incident:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X22314&key=1


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

 

[keith]

On Sun, 22 May 2005 15:58:53 +0000, Ken Smith wrote:

In article <pan.2005.05.22.03.23.18.357239@att.bizzzz>,
keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2005 02:57:20 +0000, Ken Smith wrote:

In article <pan.2005.05.20.02.29.15.835366@att.bizzzz>,
keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
[...]
I'd rather two-to-the-hat. Airliners aren't known tfor their stunt flying
capabilities.

If the pilot is to do that, a door or port has to be opened and the pilot
has to leave his seat. I'd prefer neither of these happen.

There are at least two. If one has to leave his seat to kill the bad guy,
so be it. But since the perp has to actually enter the cockpit to take
control, it's a good thing to shoot him there.

Where do you want him shot? Do you mean he has to get into the cockpit
before he gets shot. This sounds like a very bad idea.

No, but if _anyone_ breaches the cockpit it's certainly a good
thing to do. If the door, bulkhead, bathrooms, or galley stop a bullet
from either direction, that's also a good thing.

Modern air craft can easily stand -0.5G to +1.5G swings but people
walking around can't.

That may be (though it's not something that is done),


Actually it is done.

With a planeload of passengers? Those fkying drink carts are going to
piss off the first-class patrons mightily!

--
Keith

 

[Rich Grise]

On Sun, 22 May 2005 17:44:54 +0100, Steve Sousa wrote:

"Mike Monett" <no@spam.com> wrote in message news:42842928.7D7E@spam.com...
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

I've seen other discussions were it was claimed that the door on a
presurized aircraft can't be opened by design, that being the main mechanism
to avoid a crazed or claustrofobic passenger opening it in flight?
Can someone provide a definitive answer, maybe the person who had a relative
who was a pilot?

The closest I can come here is as a passenger, and I noticed, because I
found it unusual the first time I saw it, that when the flight attendant
opens the main passenger door, the door first moves _inwards_. I just
logicked it out, figuring that that would be the most sensible way to
design a door that's subjected to pressure from the inside. One PSI,
on a door that's, say, 12 feet square, that's 12 * 12 * 12 pounds. Eek.

If anybody asks, I can ask my brother Dan, who's been a male stewardess
for 17 years (he's not gay - you should see his wife! Hubba, Hubba!). I
know this number from an email I got from him last week, where he
expressed some concern that his pension might be threatened by the current
airline fiasco.

Hope His Helps!
Rich

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <pan.2005.05.22.18.23.54.989699@att.bizzzz>,
keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 22 May 2005 15:58:53 +0000, Ken Smith wrote:

In article <pan.2005.05.22.03.23.18.357239@att.bizzzz>,
keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2005 02:57:20 +0000, Ken Smith wrote:

In article <pan.2005.05.20.02.29.15.835366@att.bizzzz>,
keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
[...]
I'd rather two-to-the-hat. Airliners aren't known tfor their stunt flying
capabilities.

If the pilot is to do that, a door or port has to be opened and the pilot
has to leave his seat. I'd prefer neither of these happen.

There are at least two. If one has to leave his seat to kill the bad guy,
so be it. But since the perp has to actually enter the cockpit to take
control, it's a good thing to shoot him there.

Where do you want him shot? Do you mean he has to get into the cockpit
before he gets shot. This sounds like a very bad idea.

No, but if _anyone_ breaches the cockpit it's certainly a good
thing to do. If the door, bulkhead, bathrooms, or galley stop a bullet
from either direction, that's also a good thing.

Keeping the terrorist out of the cockpit is the only realistic option.
Making the bulkhead and door such that it would stop any weapon you could
get past the screeners. Is not very hard.

If someone gets into the cockpit, they can kill the flight crew.

Modern air craft can easily stand -0.5G to +1.5G swings but people
walking around can't.

That may be (though it's not something that is done),


Actually it is done.

With a planeload of passengers? Those fkying drink carts are going to
piss off the first-class patrons mightily!

Both Boing and Airbus have performed flight tests so they could suggest
the sort of manoeuvres could be use. That are offically called "counter
terrorist manoeuvers" not "anti-hyjacking jerking the controls wildly".

In 2001, Norman Mineta formed a panel to make recomendations on the
subject. Among the ones they made were things like depressurizing and
sudden desent. Pilots are now trained on what to do and what not to do
with the aircraft controls if upsetting the terrorist looks to be the best
option.

An Airbus aircraft's control systems refuse to take the aircraft outside
the design limits. This will prevent some sudden control inputs from
being expressed as aircraft motions. Boing aircraft can be damaged by
pilot inputs. The Boing control systems do not impose such limits.

In the 1980's and pilot of a 737 used a roll to disrupt the intentions of
a hyjacker.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Richard the Dreaded Liber]

On Sun, 22 May 2005 15:58:53 +0000, Ken Smith wrote:

keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
On Fri, 20 May 2005 02:57:20 +0000, Ken Smith wrote:
keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:
[...]
I'd rather two-to-the-hat. Airliners aren't known tfor their stunt flying
capabilities.

If the pilot is to do that, a door or port has to be opened and the pilot
has to leave his seat. I'd prefer neither of these happen.

There are at least two. If one has to leave his seat to kill the bad guy,
so be it. But since the perp has to actually enter the cockpit to take
control, it's a good thing to shoot him there.

Where do you want him shot?

I'd think that a head shot would be most effective. For nonlethal, I'd go
for the shoulders and/or knees.

Do you mean he has to get into the cockpit
before he gets shot.

No, only on entering, single file, brandishing his weapon and threatening
the lives of the passengers for whose safe passage the captain is
responsible.

This sounds like a very bad idea.

You must be a knee-jerk dumbfuck.

Modern air craft can easily stand -0.5G to +1.5G swings but people
walking around can't.

That may be (though it's not something that is done),

Actually it is done.

Intentionally? Can you cite an instance where the aircraft has pulled G's
on purpose?
--
Thanks,
Rich

 

[Jim Yanik]

Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net> wrote in
newsan.2005.05.22.19.22.58.213536@example.net:

If anybody asks, I can ask my brother Dan, who's been a male
stewardess

Then he would be a "steward",not a "stewardESS",as in "cabin steward" ;-)

Or "flight attendant"(FA),a non-sexual term for the job.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net