OT:Prevent Airline Hijacking

[Ken Smith]

In article <pan.2005.05.22.21.31.19.196669@doubleclick.net>,
Richard the Dreaded Libertarian <eatmyshorts@doubleclick.net> wrote:
[...]
[... me ...]

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.

I think it could be argued that one person acting alone is always single
file. Other than that I don't understand this comment. Since I was
trying to get Keith to expand on his ideas I will explain the situation as
I believe he and I were discussing it:

The aircraft is in flight with the pilot in control and the pilot becomes
aware of an attempt to hyjack the aircraft. In that case, to use a gun,
the pilot has to open either the door or some port in the door or bulkhead
to be able to use the gun. This reduces cockpit security.

This sounds like a very bad idea.

You must be a knee-jerk dumbfuck.

Hum an insult.... what to do about it?

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

Yes I can.


--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Mike Monett]

Steve Sousa wrote:

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

Hi Steve,

It depends on the type of door. A plug door cannot be opened when
the cabin is pressurized, which pretty much means while the a/c is
flying. Here is the explanation from a Boeing 777 FAQ:

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi,

What would happen if a passenger tried to open a cabin door in
flight? I am often concerned that if someone lose his way in the
cabin and tried to open the door. Could he do it?

Regards
Peter

Hi Peter,

I have answered this question before. A passenger cannot open the
cabin door in flight. This is because, all cabin doors of the Boeing
777 are plug doors. For those who don't know, a plug door is one
which is wider than the body structure opening. So when the door is
closed, it rests on pads on both sides of the door frame. There are
gates on the top and bottom that rotate closed when the door is
latched. These gates are there to seal the opening.

The above explanation may sound a little too technical but
basically, the door is tapered like a sink plug. The door frame in
the aircraft body is also tapered like the sink, so that you cannot
push the plug down through the sink. Once it is inside, you also
cannot push the door back out through the hole of the fuselage.

Why is it so? Well, this is because the pressurization in the cabin
holds it firmly into the doorway. Even though the door opening
handle is inside, it is physically impossible to open the door
against the pressurization differential load of about 8.5 psi or
pounds per square inch. In addition, there are mechanical door locks
that activate automatically when the airspeed exceeds 80 knots just
like some of the modern cars. (My car automatically locks all the
doors when the speed is more than 38 kph). For someone to open the
door, the Captain has to depressurize the cabin to almost zero
pressure differential and speed be reduced to 80 knots and below.
This condition only can be satisfied after the aircraft has landed.
So you can relax and not worry about anyone trying to open the door
in your next flight!

Regards,

KH Lim

http://www.geocities.com/khlim777_my/asFAQs19.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------------

OTOH, clamshell doors that open from the outside probably could be
opened in flight, if the safety interlocks were bypassed.

Mike Monett

 

[Pooh Bear]

Mike Monett wrote:

In addition, there are mechanical door locks that activate
automatically when the airspeed exceeds 80 knots

Ahhh - is this the reason behind the 'doors to automatic' call that comes
from the flight deck before take-off ? Seems to be mainly on 747s for some
reason. The cabin crew do something to the doors but never worked out
what. Always intruiged me.

Graham

 

[Steve Sousa]

"Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4291C470.76D4C943@hotmail.com...

Ahhh - is this the reason behind the 'doors to automatic' call that comes
from the flight deck before take-off ? Seems to be mainly on 747s for some
reason. The cabin crew do something to the doors but never worked out
what. Always intruiged me.

No, that's when they arm the slide, i.e. they activate the system that will
deploy the escape slide in case the door is opened.

--
Steve Sousa

 

[Jim Yanik]

kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote in
news:d6rets$sld$2@blue.rahul.net:

In article <pan.2005.05.22.21.31.19.196669@doubleclick.net>,
Richard the Dreaded Libertarian <eatmyshorts@doubleclick.net> wrote:
[...]
[... me ...]
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.

I think it could be argued that one person acting alone is always
single file. Other than that I don't understand this comment. Since
I was trying to get Keith to expand on his ideas I will explain the
situation as I believe he and I were discussing it:

The aircraft is in flight with the pilot in control

ONE of the pilots in control.There are two or more pilots on commercial
passenger flights.

and the pilot
becomes aware of an attempt to hyjack the aircraft. In that case, to
use a gun, the pilot

Again,ONE of the pilots.The other would be flying the plane.

has to open either the door or some port in the
door or bulkhead to be able to use the gun.

No,they use the gun only if cockpit security(the door) is breached.
Pilots are instructed to NOT use the gun in the passenger areas,the pilot
is NOT ALLOWED to leave the cockpit with the gun.Those are currentTSA/FFDO
rules,I believe.The gun is for cockpit defense only,and leaving the cockpit
to defend it is plain stupid.That doorway is a chokepoint allowing for the
best defense of the cockpit.

(TSA=Transportation Security Administration,FFDO=Federal Flight Deck
Officer;IOW,law authority)

This reduces cockpit
security.

The problem is that the cockpit door is routinely opened for various
reasons during a flight.Toilet breaks,meals,aircraft mechanical problems,or
other reasons.That is what reduces cockpit security.

This sounds like a very bad idea.

You must be a knee-jerk dumbfuck.

Hum an insult.... what to do about it?

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

Yes I can.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <Xns965F5F8E7AD0Cjyanikkuanet@129.250.170.85>,
Jim Yanik <jyanik@abuse.gov.> wrote:

kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote in
news:d6rets$sld$2@blue.rahul.net:
[....]
The aircraft is in flight with the pilot in control

ONE of the pilots in control.There are two or more pilots on commercial
passenger flights.

Yes, so what's the point.

[....]

No,they use the gun only if cockpit security(the door) is breached.
Pilots are instructed to NOT use the gun in the passenger areas,the pilot
is NOT ALLOWED to leave the cockpit with the gun.Those are currentTSA/FFDO
rules,I believe.The gun is for cockpit defense only,and leaving the cockpit
to defend it is plain stupid.That doorway is a chokepoint allowing for the
best defense of the cockpit.

If the door is well designed, the case of the breach does not happen. The
door will have to be opened by the pilots as you suggest. This is not the
case under discussion in the earlier argument. The discussion started
with a terrorist attempting to gain access to the cockpit by breaking down
the door.

I think you will agree that this is not a good situation to attempt to use
a hand gun. The hyjacker is outside the door and the pilot is inside the
door. This is the case where I said using a gun was a bad idea.

The problem is that the cockpit door is routinely opened for various
reasons during a flight.Toilet breaks,meals,aircraft mechanical problems,or
other reasons.That is what reduces cockpit security.

When the door is in fact opened, there is very little time for a person to
leave their seat and reach the cockpit. The pilot, copilot or a stew will
go through the door and then it will be closed again. Obviously the
hyjacker will have to pay for a first class ticket and arrange to be in
the front rows.

Again on the subject of timing: If the hyjacker is fast enough to cover
the ground to the cockpit door in the short time available, it seems that
the remaining cockpit crew must already have the gun in his/her hand to be
able to use it. (At the range in question, that little hand axe would be
long enough)

People under stress to not, generally, do well at quickly picking up a
gun, aiming and shooting one or two effective shots. People tend to shoot
in the direction of the center of the body in "spray and pray" mode.

Also assuming a cockpit crew of two, one flying and one going through the
door, you are out of people to be holding the gun unless the person going
through the door has it. In that case the gun must be outside the cockpit
at some point.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Pooh Bear]

Steve Sousa wrote:

"Pooh Bear" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4291C470.76D4C943@hotmail.com...
Ahhh - is this the reason behind the 'doors to automatic' call that comes
from the flight deck before take-off ? Seems to be mainly on 747s for some
reason. The cabin crew do something to the doors but never worked out
what. Always intruiged me.

No, that's when they arm the slide, i.e. they activate the system that will
deploy the escape slide in case the door is opened.

Ok - I suspected that originally.

Cheers, Graham

 

[Pooh Bear]

Jim Yanik wrote:

ONE of the pilots in control.There are two or more pilots on commercial
passenger flights.

And quite possibly *neither* of them is flying the plane ! ;-)

Graham

 

[keith]

On Mon, 23 May 2005 02:25:00 +0000, Ken Smith wrote:

In article <pan.2005.05.22.21.31.19.196669@doubleclick.net>,
Richard the Dreaded Libertarian <eatmyshorts@doubleclick.net> wrote:
[...]
[... me ...]
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.

I think it could be argued that one person acting alone is always single
file. Other than that I don't understand this comment. Since I was
trying to get Keith to expand on his ideas I will explain the situation as
I believe he and I were discussing it:

Keith thinks pretty much what's already been said here, so hasn't added
any more. If you need a better explanation; *KILL* the bastards that
breach the cabin. THe flight crew stays in the cabing and bolts the door.
If there is *any* nonsense in the air, land the plane *now*, and deal with
the clean-up later. The cockpit crew's job is to fly the plane. If
anyone threatens that job, kill the bastard. ...yes, that includes the
drunk assaulting the cabin crew staggering towards the cockpit (though the
cockpit crew has better things to do at that point).

The aircraft is in flight with the pilot in control and the pilot
becomes aware of an attempt to hyjack the aircraft. In that case, to
use a gun, the pilot has to open either the door or some port in the
door or bulkhead to be able to use the gun. This reduces cockpit
security.

Nope. THe crew's job is to get the plane on the ground. *NOW*. Deal
with the crap in the back later. The only reason for the gun in the
cockpit is to defend the cockpit. IMO, the reason for no gun elsewhere
is to make defending the cockpit easier.

This sounds like a very bad idea.

You must be a knee-jerk dumbfuck.

Hum an insult.... what to do about it?

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

Yes I can.

Ok... (we are limiting this to civilian, prefereably US flag, airlines).

--
Keith

 

[Jim Yanik]

keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote in
newsan.2005.05.24.01.26.20.824942@att.bizzzz:

Nope. THe crew's job is to get the plane on the ground. *NOW*. Deal
with the crap in the back later. The only reason for the gun in the
cockpit is to defend the cockpit.

This is standard procedure according to TSA(Transportation Security
Administration) for FFDOs(Federal Flight Deck Officers).
That's what they are trained to do.
In fact,they are prohibited from taking the gun into the passenger spaces.

The presence of armed pilots makes the hijackers chances of success too
small for them to make an attempt.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

 

[Rich Grise]

On Sun, 22 May 2005 22:11:49 +0000, Jim Yanik wrote:

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.

Yes, I know. His official job title is "flight attendant." But it's so
much more fun to say, "male stewardess".

I guess I'm just not very humorous. )-;

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Pooh Bear]

keith wrote:

Keith thinks pretty much what's already been said here, so hasn't added
any more. If you need a better explanation; *KILL* the bastards that
breach the cabin. THe flight crew stays in the cabing and bolts the door.
If there is *any* nonsense in the air, land the plane *now*, and deal with
the clean-up later. The cockpit crew's job is to fly the plane. If
anyone threatens that job, kill the bastard. ...yes, that includes the
drunk assaulting the cabin crew staggering towards the cockpit (though the
cockpit crew has better things to do at that point).

You might care to loosen up and note that no-one has attempted breaching a
cockpit door using a gun since way *before* 9/11 !

You sound like a crazy to me. Probably the last person on earth who ought to
have a gun actually.

Sadly you have no laws in the US preventing crazies owning guns.

Graham

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <pan.2005.05.24.01.26.20.824942@att.bizzzz>,
keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

I've got a major "dog and pony show" coming up so I may not be back for
quite a while because I'm going to be very busy for a bit.

[...]

If you need a better explanation; *KILL* the bastards that
breach the cabin.

I agree with the idea of killing them if needed but I much prefer
preventing the breach in the first place. The strong
bulkhead and the "antiterrorist maneuovres" are for this purpose.

In the Brazil case in 1988, the cockpit breach had already happened.

[...]

The aircraft is in flight with the pilot in control and the pilot
becomes aware of an attempt to hyjack the aircraft. In that case, to
use a gun, the pilot has to open either the door or some port in the
door or bulkhead to be able to use the gun. This reduces cockpit
security.

Nope. THe crew's job is to get the plane on the ground. *NOW*. Deal
with the crap in the back later. The only reason for the gun in the
cockpit is to defend the cockpit. IMO, the reason for no gun elsewhere
is to make defending the cockpit easier.

So I guess we actually agree on the substance and that is where we can
leave it.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Terry Given]

Ken Smith wrote:

In article <pan.2005.05.24.01.26.20.824942@att.bizzzz>,
keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

I've got a major "dog and pony show" coming up so I may not be back for
quite a while because I'm going to be very busy for a bit.

[...]

If you need a better explanation; *KILL* the bastards that
breach the cabin.


I agree with the idea of killing them if needed but I much prefer
preventing the breach in the first place. The strong
bulkhead and the "antiterrorist maneuovres" are for this purpose.

In the Brazil case in 1988, the cockpit breach had already happened.

[...]

The aircraft is in flight with the pilot in control and the pilot
becomes aware of an attempt to hyjack the aircraft. In that case, to
use a gun, the pilot has to open either the door or some port in the
door or bulkhead to be able to use the gun. This reduces cockpit
security.

Nope. THe crew's job is to get the plane on the ground. *NOW*. Deal
with the crap in the back later. The only reason for the gun in the
cockpit is to defend the cockpit. IMO, the reason for no gun elsewhere
is to make defending the cockpit easier.



So I guess we actually agree on the substance and that is where we can
leave it.

*ALL* of you have *completely* missed the point so ably raised by the
crazed ragheads on 9/11 - they plan on killing *everyone*.

Luckily for us they are all stupid, or they will figure out somthing
like this: 4 terrorists board a plane, carrying flammable liquid,
lighters and wearing a flame suit (a-la racecar drivers. racecar is a
palindrome). At a suitably time (eg overhead some costly infrastructure,
people etc) all nutjobs go to the loo(s) whereupon, in complete privacy,
they soak the loo and themselves in flammable liquid. unlock doors,
light loo, come out spraying burning fuel over seats. We all know how
well plastic foam burns, betcha that'll fuck the plane completely. and
tackling said nutter will be a lot more difficult. fire extinguishers
anyone?

or maybe this: hire a cargo plane, load up with suitable nasty cargo
(hell, weight would do, but flammable is better), hijack cargo plane
when suitable, crash & burn (no passengers to worry about).

Shit, OBL has stacks of cash. Buy a plane.....

hands up who remembers the seoul train fire? flammable material + robust
source of ignition + suicidal nutjob = 400+ deaths.

Cheers
Terry

 

[Jim Yanik]

Terry Given <my_name@ieee.org> wrote in
news:2Zsle.3215$U4.468022@news.xtra.co.nz:

Ken Smith wrote:
In article <pan.2005.05.24.01.26.20.824942@att.bizzzz>,
keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

I've got a major "dog and pony show" coming up so I may not be back for
quite a while because I'm going to be very busy for a bit.

[...]

If you need a better explanation; *KILL* the bastards that
breach the cabin.


I agree with the idea of killing them if needed but I much prefer
preventing the breach in the first place. The strong
bulkhead and the "antiterrorist maneuovres" are for this purpose.

In the Brazil case in 1988, the cockpit breach had already happened.

[...]

The aircraft is in flight with the pilot in control and the pilot
becomes aware of an attempt to hyjack the aircraft. In that case, to
use a gun, the pilot has to open either the door or some port in the
door or bulkhead to be able to use the gun. This reduces cockpit
security.

Nope. THe crew's job is to get the plane on the ground. *NOW*. Deal
with the crap in the back later. The only reason for the gun in the
cockpit is to defend the cockpit. IMO, the reason for no gun elsewhere
is to make defending the cockpit easier.



So I guess we actually agree on the substance and that is where we can
leave it.


*ALL* of you have *completely* missed the point so ably raised by the
crazed ragheads on 9/11 - they plan on killing *everyone*.

They plan on using the aircraft as a weapon to kill many more on the
ground.That's where the cockpit defense becomes necessary.

Luckily for us they are all stupid, or they will figure out somthing
like this: 4 terrorists board a plane, carrying flammable liquid,
lighters and wearing a flame suit (a-la racecar drivers. racecar is a
palindrome). At a suitably time (eg overhead some costly infrastructure,
people etc) all nutjobs go to the loo(s) whereupon, in complete privacy,
they soak the loo and themselves in flammable liquid. unlock doors,
light loo, come out spraying burning fuel over seats. We all know how
well plastic foam burns, betcha that'll fuck the plane completely. and
tackling said nutter will be a lot more difficult. fire extinguishers
anyone?

That sort of job doesn't give them the big bang for their trouble,that they
wish to inflict upon the US these days.

or maybe this: hire a cargo plane, load up with suitable nasty cargo
(hell, weight would do, but flammable is better), hijack cargo plane
when suitable, crash & burn (no passengers to worry about).

Cargo flights ARE more vulnerable.

Shit, OBL has stacks of cash. Buy a plane.....

Planes need flight plans,clearance to enter the US.
Unknowns get intercepted by the military.

hands up who remembers the seoul train fire? flammable material + robust
source of ignition + suicidal nutjob = 400+ deaths.

Cheers
Terry

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

 

[Terry Given]

Jim Yanik wrote:

Terry Given <my_name@ieee.org> wrote in
news:2Zsle.3215$U4.468022@news.xtra.co.nz:


Ken Smith wrote:

In article <pan.2005.05.24.01.26.20.824942@att.bizzzz>,
keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

I've got a major "dog and pony show" coming up so I may not be back for
quite a while because I'm going to be very busy for a bit.

[...]


If you need a better explanation; *KILL* the bastards that
breach the cabin.


I agree with the idea of killing them if needed but I much prefer
preventing the breach in the first place. The strong
bulkhead and the "antiterrorist maneuovres" are for this purpose.

In the Brazil case in 1988, the cockpit breach had already happened.

[...]


The aircraft is in flight with the pilot in control and the pilot
becomes aware of an attempt to hyjack the aircraft. In that case, to
use a gun, the pilot has to open either the door or some port in the
door or bulkhead to be able to use the gun. This reduces cockpit
security.

Nope. THe crew's job is to get the plane on the ground. *NOW*. Deal
with the crap in the back later. The only reason for the gun in the
cockpit is to defend the cockpit. IMO, the reason for no gun elsewhere
is to make defending the cockpit easier.



So I guess we actually agree on the substance and that is where we can
leave it.


*ALL* of you have *completely* missed the point so ably raised by the
crazed ragheads on 9/11 - they plan on killing *everyone*.


They plan on using the aircraft as a weapon to kill many more on the
ground.That's where the cockpit defense becomes necessary.

agreed. it seems pretty silly that cockpits are so unnecessarily vulnerable.

Luckily for us they are all stupid, or they will figure out somthing
like this: 4 terrorists board a plane, carrying flammable liquid,
lighters and wearing a flame suit (a-la racecar drivers. racecar is a
palindrome). At a suitably time (eg overhead some costly infrastructure,
people etc) all nutjobs go to the loo(s) whereupon, in complete privacy,
they soak the loo and themselves in flammable liquid. unlock doors,
light loo, come out spraying burning fuel over seats. We all know how
well plastic foam burns, betcha that'll fuck the plane completely. and
tackling said nutter will be a lot more difficult. fire extinguishers
anyone?


That sort of job doesn't give them the big bang for their trouble,that they
wish to inflict upon the US these days.

10 planes at once will wipe out more people than 9/11, and all it takes
is looking up the flight details on-line. careful timing may allow
debris to hit populated areas.

the nutters dont seem to be suffering from a shortage of suicide bombers

or maybe this: hire a cargo plane, load up with suitable nasty cargo
(hell, weight would do, but flammable is better), hijack cargo plane
when suitable, crash & burn (no passengers to worry about).


Cargo flights ARE more vulnerable.

Shit, OBL has stacks of cash. Buy a plane.....


Planes need flight plans,clearance to enter the US.
Unknowns get intercepted by the military.

true, but front companies arent hard to create. let it be a "known"
right up until it can suicide.

I presume flight paths have (or will be) altered to ensure major
population centers are avoided.

then again, suicide into the airport. that'll make a fucking mess, and
it is of course impossible to prevent planes coming close to airports.
This would work well for the buy-a-plane-and-fly-casually approach.

hands up who remembers the seoul train fire? flammable material + robust
source of ignition + suicidal nutjob = 400+ deaths.

Cheers
Terry

ultimately, terrorism is little more than a design problem. Any
"solution" to, say, aircraft kinetic weapons, the terrorists will simply
think of something else.

fire-based suicide bombers would create havoc at stadiums (which I
presume have bomb sniffers?) Imagine what an inventive person could then
do - say a fake (or stolen) firetruck loaded with 10,000kg of ANFO.

long-term solutions are either genocide or (preferably IMO) resolving
the issues that created the nutjobs in the first place. Israel has
proven conclusively that hitting back alone is *not* sufficient.

Cheers
Terry

 

[Pooh Bear]

Jim Yanik wrote:

< snip >

Planes need flight plans,clearance to enter the US.
Unknowns get intercepted by the military.

So buy an existing small operator. That'll give you more planes too.

One hopes that the 'intelligence' services are looking for this kind of thing.

Graham

 

[Terry Given]

Pooh Bear wrote:

Jim Yanik wrote:

snip

Planes need flight plans,clearance to enter the US.
Unknowns get intercepted by the military.


So buy an existing small operator. That'll give you more planes too.

One hopes that the 'intelligence' services are looking for this kind of thing.

Graham

based on their performance to date, they wouldnt notice it happening if
*they* sold the damned plane(s).

If I was a USian, I'd be mighty pissed about the piss-poor results
obtained from the insane quantities of money spent on intelligence,
followed by defense (what, hundreds of billions a year, and they havent
got enough armour? wtf?). What a waste of taxpayers money.

NZ's intelligence agencies are likewise fucking morons, but at least
ours are 10,000 times cheaper.

And the UK has shit all over its face, too.

Actually, I think this all proves a point NASA so impressively
demonstrated - problems you dont look for are problems you dont find.

Hiding things from scrutiny mostly just allows fuckups to continue
unchecked.


Cheers
Terry

 

[Pooh Bear]

Terry Given wrote:

I presume flight paths have (or will be) altered to ensure major
population centers are avoided.

Not possible. For example a Lufthansa flight from Frankfurt I was on flew into
Heathrow 'straight in' over the Thames river. That route seems to be taken when
traffic is light.

Graham

 

[Terry Given]

Pooh Bear wrote:

Terry Given wrote:


I presume flight paths have (or will be) altered to ensure major
population centers are avoided.


Not possible. For example a Lufthansa flight from Frankfurt I was on flew into
Heathrow 'straight in' over the Thames river. That route seems to be taken when
traffic is light.

Graham

Odd. That would seem to me to be a fairly sensible risk-management
strategy. I guess I'll have to make do with the confiscation of knitting
needles.

Cheers
Terry