Sky Marshal program..

[Elguapo]

When did the air marhall prrrogram end?

[CJ]

They DO make bullets that will not penetrate the aircraft's fuselage, but will still easily kill a person.  ALso, I wouldn't be too afraid of being hit by a stray bullet, when compared to the threat of having the airliner flown into a building or blown up, and these skymarshals would be well trained, so they probably wouldn't implement "spray and pray" tactics.

[DmdStuB]

I don't mean to sound like I'm flaming you, but those aren't really good options.  Tasers and tranquilizers are are all one shot deals.  You miss and you don't get a second chance.  Also, along with knockout gas, they do not immediately stop the bad guy, if at all.  OC (aka pepper spray ) will affect everyone in the plane.  Plus, there are quite a few people who aren't all that affected by it.  I have seen a few people receive a full can in the face and still keep on going. When you are dealing with a use of force situation, you need to be able to respond with a greater level of force than the one you are facing.  In the force continuum that my PD adheres to, you have (lowest to highest) presence (including verbal commands), oc spray, hands on (no weapons), impact weapons (batons, flashlights, etc...),  and finally, deadly force...meaning any action that may lead to  death or grave injury to the subject.  You don't have to start right at the lowest option right off the bat.  It is looked at as more like a wheel.  The actions of the badguy determines which option the wheel stops at.
Keep in mind that approximately 8 out of 10 times, a person with a knife, standing 20 feet away from a person standing with their hand on a holstered gun, can charge and stab the other person before they can draw and fire their gun at them.  Would you use oc on the guy, hoping that he will stop his attack?  Would you whip out your baton, hoping that you are a better stick fighter than he is a knife fighter?  Would you fire off your taser, hoping that both barbs hit him (clothes often keep them from making a good contact with the skin)?  And what about his accomplices, who start fighting you as you deal with him?  Anything short of immediate and complete incapacitation just wont do in these type of situations.  Hell, you could shoot the guy 5 times in the chest and he could still kill you anyway.  

StuB

Again, not a flame.....just a different perspective.

 

Originally posted by Octavius:
There are alternatives to using guns aboard an aircraft.  Tazers, tranquilizers, pepper spray, etc.  This is far fetched, but (given the cockpits would be completely sealed from the passenger section) why not use some sort of knock-out gas?  Hijackers and passengers have a comfortable sleep while the pilots get the bird on the ground.  Hijackers could then live to be prosecuted.  Hijackers can then make plenty of "pals" (given they dont drop the soap!!) in prison and live happily ever after     .  Necessity is the mother of invention.  Be innovative and creative.    

oct

[ 09-12-2001: Message edited by: Octavius ]

[DmdStuB]

I'm a little curious.  How do you defend yourself? or do you just leave that up to someone else?

StuB

 

Originally posted by qqqqq:
um yeah having shootouts aboard airplanes loaded with people great idea!!  if they wanted to hijack a plane there going to unless maybe u stick half the plane with guard then the damage from the shooting would probably cause a great deal of damage and kill many people on the flight.  The best way is to stop them before they get on the plane.  And u need guns to defend urself
? u wuss guns are for sissies.

[AKSWulfe]

Don't forget about the arsenal the prison security guards have available to them.

All of them are non-lethal but inflict a lot of pain and subdue the target.

Just something to think about..
-SW

[streakeagle]

I would like to see a special system with access codes that would permit the aircraft to be piloted remotely from the nearest capable air traffic control tower. Normally, the system would be disabled to prevent hijackers on the ground from taking control. But, upon pressing the hijack button... the tower would have the option to respond with a code (established just prior to takeoff, or maybe based on a code the pilot keys in before takeoff) that would permit it to override the pilot controls (only useful in modern fly-by-wire a/c). This could help in a lot of situations, though secure radio systems tend to be expensive.

[Glasses]

I vote yes for Skymarshalls ,yes for sealing off the pilots and yes even moer so to give some type of defence to the pilots themselves this toejam has got to stop.

[Toad]

Sorry to bust your bubbles guys, but like everything else in the US, this problem will be addressed on the basis of dollar cost.

They will spend the absolute minimum amount of money necessary to 1) restore the confidence of the "flying public" in the "system" and 2) make it slightly more difficult for the terrorists.

The will NOT spend the money necessary to make it theoretically impossible for the terrorists. The won't even spend the money necessary to make it even highly improbable for the terrorists.

Remote control airliners? No forking way. Way to costly, way to risky in terms of unproven technology.

Sealed cockpit? No forking way. Yes, it's possible but it means they'd have to give us a latrine of our own and I guarantee you the Managements will not give up that much "paying passenger" cabin space. Man, you're talking the equivalent of taking 4 seats out of First Class. They will fight that to our deaths.

What will happen? Increased security at check in (baggage checks, personal ID, possible cross reference with law enforcement data bases).

Slightly better training and slightly better paid people at the metal detectors.

A new policy and new training for the crews... not to include weaponry, so it won't really make any difference.

A reinstitution of the "sky marshal" program which will absolutely not cover every flight. A "profile" will be developed for "high risk" flights and marshals will be put on board. Expect significantly less than 1% of the flights on any given day to have a marshal. Each of the majors flies THOUSANDS of flights per day. Perhaps... just perhaps... a hundred or maybe two hundred flights on a given major airline might get marshals. I doubt it will be that high. More like 25-50, I'd guess.

There's the reality of it. Money still controls the reaction.

[Glasses]

and they will cost even more when people stop flying out of fear they'll end up slamming into the ground by terrorists or by the side of a building. If they're not willing to do it for themselves I think the FAA will need to address this and come to a conclusion other than beefed up security.

[Jochen]

Yesterday I heard from radio that Al Gore had program to increase safety on internal commercial flights but it was turned down by aviation business because it was too expensive and would have decreased revenues.

Anyone know if this is true?

[Creamo]

You guys are so clueless.

People will demand to fly for $200 coast to coast, and be happy to, regardless if it's safe, by hijackers, or shoddy contract monkeys working on planes.

Cheap Contractors

That door was about to be airliner #5, brought down by money saving airlines, the only diffrence was, WHO knows where, and the cheap bellybutton companies were the terrorists.

If the airlines did what you wanted, it would triple the price, rightfully so, and people would take any airline at a cheaper fair regardless if they had no security, full crappy contract maintenance, and the highest risk factor.

This is so far and above normal people's understanding the aviation system, it's sickening.

More off topic BS.

[ 09-13-2001: Message edited by: Creamo ]

[-tronski-]

Originally posted by Enduro Rider:
[QB]Iofficially declaring war on terrorist factions and supportive governments all over the world.[qb]

Like the war on drugs?

[ 09-13-2001: Message edited by: -tronski- ]

[-ammo-]

Originally posted by lazs1:
oh yeah... cockpit door security is essential!   No one get's in... pass throughs for coffee and such.  IMO, terrorist resistant cockpit doors would be a great help to the sky marshals.

most of the time you can look right in to the cockpit.... If nothing else... let's keep secure doors closed to keep out the drunks and crazies!  Oh.... and speaking of drunks... a revolver barrel across the bridge of the nose from a sky marshal would go a long way toward making the trip a lot more pleasant for the rest of us.
lazs

[ 09-12-2001: Message edited by: lazs1 ]

Someone mentioned the pilots and crew being sealed off or walled off. Well that is all fine and dandy, but what if the pilot(s) have to take a dump? Dont mean to belittle this at all.

[1776]

Handcuff and shakle all passengers to their seats.  Should solve all problems  no need  for heads (additional seats) no need for flight attendents  Huge cost savings for airlines.  The flying public would be safe, but only soiled.

Personaly I hope travel by rail is expanded.

[Thunder]

Ammo,

This was mentioned  

 

WALL OFF THE PILOTS FROM THE PASSENGERS! Give them a separate entry door and there own facilities.  

And you are right in considering it!