Sky Marshal program..

[Tac]

Just put a tazer gun below every seat and add the how-to instructions as part of the take-off instructions and the magazines.

[Creamo]

Thanks for the input Mav.

I agree pilots, like you said, should have a weapon. Just not in the shoot through the roof gun kind.

Airflow in aircraft goes out through the outflow valve, usually in the back of the plane. There’s a extract fan for cooling in the avionics bay, but not sure if that effects crew air to tell you the truth. If in fact a mace like self-defense was implemented, a procedure would have to be included in a emergency check list at the first sign of problems. This would include to shut-off the re-circulation fans off etc. to isolate the crew from any pepper spray. Plus they have O2 masks, goggles, even personal breathing equipment that isolates them from the environment. I don’t know about tazers, seemed like a suggestion to throw in. I know from getting the slightest dose of pepper spray I had, was absolutely horrible.

I don’t mind taking heat. Especially when they are theories of redesigning existing aircraft, fortifying doors so they trap the crew, and putting guns on airplanes that just doesn’t properly address the problem without creating more problems themselves.

[sling322]

Originally posted by Tac:
Just put a tazer gun below every seat and add the how-to instructions as part of the take-off instructions and the magazines.

I'm sure that would work Tac.  How many people do you know that actually listen to that speech that the flight attendants give?  

[jedi]

Seems to me that if you have ONE "skymarshal" in the back, and, say, FOUR unarmed hijackers, that in a minute or so you'll have one DEAD skymarshal, one dead terrorist, two or three dead passengers, a damaged aircraft, and three LIVE terrorists, one of whom is now armed with the skymarshal's weapon.

If you're going to go with the scenario that the hijackers are "inevitably" going to get "heavy" weapons like guns or bombs on board, the battle is over, and one fairly easily detected skycop isn't going to be anything but the first target to be eliminated.  Likewise even a reinforced cockpit door isn't going to stand up to gunfire for long.

That means you put your greatest emphasis into preventing ANY firearms or explosives from entering the cabin at all.  If that means no carryons, metal detectors and working dogs and pat-down searches at the gates, then that's what you have to do (IF you're going to do more than just pay lip service to the problem, which is always a possibility given corporate "conscience.")

If you can achieve THAT, then the "isolated cockpit" becomes a workable concept.  Only the pilots would control access (no FA keys) and the response to ANY inflight disturbance not controllable by the cabin crew would be IMMEDIATE emergency descent and landing.  The days of "defusing the situation by complying with the hijackers" are over.  If the hijackers are armed only with makeshift weapons, they can't breach the cockpit, and (hopefully) they can't kill very many people before they get their tulips kicked by enraged passengers and cabin crew.  A plastic knife isn't much of a "force multiplier."

Putting a gun in the back just adds another weapon to the hijackers' collection.

P.S. any time you see an argument between someone who clearly knows what he's talking about (Toad) and someone whose idea of "wisdom" is a statement like "you guys are so clueless" to his supposed "online buddies," it's pretty easy to figure out which side of the argument to support  

[AKDejaVu]

Creamo,

Fortifying the cabin doors is a necessity.  It is not something that would be cheap, easy nor immediate... but it is necessary.

There needs to be more separation between the passengers and the pilots.

AKDejaVu

[Maverick]

Jedi,

No one said the airmarshall has to be easy to spot. The best way is to make sure he is truly undercover.

In the case of 4 or 5 animals with knives vs one skymarshall (who said it had to be just one?) I think the animals would lose. Yes there will likely be some casualties. Better a few there than a plane into another skyscraper. The rest of the passengers just might help out as well.

Mav

[jedi]

I'm just saying that if you put a guy with a gun in the back, the hijackers will simply build a plan that neutralizes that guy.

For instance, the four hijacked planes each had about 70 people on board, when they were capable of carrying 200+  Coincidence?  I doubt it.  I'll bet money that the demographics of airline travel was analyzed and it was determined that a passenger load of that size was "controllable" by a team of 4 or 5 knife-wielding attackers, one of whom would later be busy flying the jet, and that those flights were picked precisely BECAUSE of the size of the passenger load.

Throw a possible armed defender into the mix, and you simply force the hijackers to use a bigger team, with perhaps a diversion set up to draw out the skymarshal so he can be ambushed while he's busy killing the decoy (remember, these guys all KNOW they're going to die when they get on the plane--dying taking out the skycop would probably be a "plum" assignment)    And NOW you have the hijackers armed with a captured weapon that WILL go through the (currently unreinforced) cockpit door.

It's an outdated response to last year's hijacker.  The hijacker of the future wants the airplane, not the hostages, and if he's going to "martyr" himself, he's not going to be squeamish about losing some of his team if it means getting a weapon with which he can control the crowd.  So he uses 10 guys instead of 4, and runs the cop out of bullets.  He still wins.

The plan that worked on Tuesday would still have worked with skymarshals on board--it would have only required dealing with the skymarshal first.  The only thing that would have defeated the plan (other than having useful intelligence before the fact) was what happened in Pennsylvania--physical resistance by the passengers.

What would have prevented it? A 180-degree change in the standard response to hijacking: refusal to come out of the cockpit, immediate landing, and acceptance of passenger and cabin crew casualties as "inevitable."

A bitter pill, but there it is.  Ironically, the system for preventing "real" weapons on the planes seems to have worked: the hijackers didn't risk trying to get firearms or explosives on board--they HAD to get on the plane safely or their plan was doomed.  What is tragic is that they were able able to kill thousands while wielding household tools, simply because our aviation mindset says "try to talk them down."

Skymarshals will just be heroic targets, killing terrorists who planned on dying anyway, and they'll just provide hijackers with weapons they couldn't get on the plane themselves.

The solutions to this problem are on the ground and FORWARD of the cockpit bulkhead, not in the cabin.


Just MHO.

[streakeagle]

In the past, hijackers have been armed with anything from guns to bombs. They will have anything they are smart enough to find a way to bring on board. All I want is to level the playing field a bit. Say there are 60 passengers, maybe 1 in 10 have permits and are carrying weapons. That means 6 armed unknowns terrorists would have to contend with. The beauty of concealed carry is that the criminal never knows if the victim is armed or not. Maybe all 60 people really fear terrorists and are carrying.

Concealed carry is a deterent that does significantly reduce violent crimes (as documented in my beloved state of Florida), or the states that passed these laws would have been forced to repeal them by the anti-gun lobby. The only problem I know of since Florida passed this law is that the criminals shifted focus to out of state tourists who are less likely to be armed thanks to the airline rules and the laws of the places they came from.

As for the sanity of firing weapons on airplanes:
choice 1: die by terrorist for sure
choice 2: possibly miss or pass through target and maybe die

Firing guns on submarines is never a good thing. Too many pipes, valves, and wires to damage. Not to mention the problem with ricochets coming back and getting you.

But guess what the Navy does:
Sailors (read: almost completely untrained in the use of firearms) are handed a variety of pistols, rifles, and shotguns in order to handle onboard security violations. If untrained personnel in a close quarters hazzardous environment is good enough to protect nuclear reactors and weapons on board submarines, just maybe it might help out on airliners  

So to answer someone's question about having thought about everyone around me carrying a gun: yes, I have. Personally, I don't think some of the people I trained should ever be allowed near a weapon. But, when my watch relief showed up, I signed over my weapon to whomever he was because the powers that be had signed a piece of paper certifying he was qualified to handle a weapon and use deadly force, just like my concealed carry permit  

[ 09-14-2001: Message edited by: streakeagle ]

[Creamo]

Fortifying the cabin doors is a necessity. It is not something that would be cheap, easy nor immediate... but it is necessary.

There needs to be more separation between the passengers and the pilots.

AKDejaVu

You are right. It would indeed add some sort of protection. But the key here is cheap, easy, or immediate. I've really thought how they could beef the existing configuration up. You can add new stronger door, but again, a determined individual could get through almost anything. That leaves only a new design, and the part Im trying to convey about airlines is I can't see them doing anything soon. See, back to original problem.

For instance 3 out I think 12 fleet types we have are going through a overhead bin replacment program. Just retrofitting them with larger bins. It cost $88,000,000.oo! Can you imagine reconfiguring planes to add this seperation solution? It would be astronomical. So again I don't think they will do anything. Maybe a stroner latch mechanism, or what I'd like to see, a bar that is installed when the pilots are seated. Problem there is the attaching bulkhead is weak, which is basically CB panels. MAybe they can mod something like that.

The real line of defense now is the American people. I can't name anyone I know that wont fight like hell with whatever they have if in this situation. 80 people vs. 5 in a cramp little cabin with no room to manuvure will have favorable outcome.

[ 09-14-2001: Message edited by: Creamo ]

[bowser]

As Toad pointed out in another thread, impenetrable doors are the norm already in the Middle East.  No excuse not to do it here also.  
 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21262-2001Sep12.html

They have to weigh the cost against the losses they will take until they do something to restore passenger confidence.

bowser

[lazs1]

jedi ur wrong on this one... One or two trained sky marshals undercover would prevent knife weilding crazies..   we had a sky marshall program and it worked... the crazies simply did not make the attempt.  they wrote it off as a bad plan.

If you are frightened that the marshall(s) would be dumb enough to allow their weapon to be taken from them then... we can issue them those clumsy revolvers that work on a "ring" that only the ring wearer can fire..   By the time they get his finger cut off the rest of the passengers might get their finger out and help.  Jedi... what you gotta ask is, "would extra security on the ground prevent what happened in the air?"...  Plastic, balistic nylon and kevlar, knives can allways come aboard if you are willing to break the law.  It boils down too.... security measures on the ground assure that the only armed or dangerous people on a plane are the bad guys...  The better the security on the ground the more likely that you are trapped on a plane with armed crazies and no chance of help.

sky marshalls are trained to anallize the situation.   people help cops all the time because they know that they are making the right decision...  such would be the case in the air.   As it is... you have to decide if you are doing the right thing by attacking a skyjacker or merely endangering everyone.   if I see someone struggling with a sky marshall I would be motivated to help.

The pilot being behind "terrorist resistant" doors and armed is fine.  

creamo... fine.   but i still haven't heard your plan.   all plans are easy to dispute.   All have some flaws.   I believe my plan has very few flaws and is the least intrusive to our freedoms.   Any plan that stops the minute the wheels leave the ground is no plan at all.  But.... let's hear yours.  
lazs

[DmdStuB]

Jedi, you are making the assumption that the terrorists will be able to readily identify the sky marshall(s).  
And if the terrs have to use a bigger force to accomplish the mission it makes it harder for them to escape detection beforehand.

StuB

 

Originally posted by jedi:
I'm just saying that if you put a guy with a gun in the back, the hijackers will simply build a plan that neutralizes that guy.

[DmdStuB]

You guys need to learn more about oc (pepper) spray and tasers.  You can empty a can of oc on someone and they can still function.  I have seen it happen.  I have been sprayed a number of times, both in training and out in the field dealing with dickheads.  Yes, it hurts like hell, yes, it can make you think you can't breathe but when your adrenaline is pumping you can do what you need to do.  It is very rare that you spray someone and they just stop and collapse onto the ground begging for mercy.  Some people fight even harder after they have been sprayed.  If you spray someone and then have to fight with them you get all that oc all over you.  It is even worse inside a tight space like an aircraft with a closed ventillation system.  You will be just as incapacitated as the other guy..... which one of you will recover first?
Tasers are a one shot deal and are hard to aim.  What happens after you miss, or if it doesn't make a good contact?
It is very simple.....to respond to a terrorist on board you need to use deadly force.
There have been some great advancements in the developement of frangible ammunition.
A well trained person, undercover (really undercover, not looking like a commando dressed in his civvies)armed with a hi cap autoloader with frangible ammo could stop something rather quickly.
As far as pilots packing, I'm for it as long as they have to qual with their weapons a min of every 6 months.  As far as the shoot don't shoot stuff goes....its a matter of quickly assessing a situation while under stress and making a decision as to what course of action to take.  Pilots, by nature are able to do this sort of thing.
I reccommend that you go take an oc spray certification course where you have to get sprayed.....then decide if it will totally incapacitate thee guy.

StuB

 

Originally posted by Creamo:
Oh man…OK Laz. My plan was to discuss the solutions to the hijacking with answers that were more easily feasible. And in the case of cockpit doors, for guys like you, to help explain at least with some technical reasons why it's not such a simple solution to just fortify the crew in the flight deck. You seem miffed, so I guess that didn't work.


As far as the gun issue, like I said, they need sky marshals, or equip the crew with tazers/pepper spray, not .357's. It got way out of hand in the thread that my opinion is all jealousy based blah,blah,blah. I think I embarrassed someone and he tweaked out. Whatever. Shooting off guns in airplanes is a no-no, period.

So here, do this simple test. Look around at all the people you work with, and imagine them armed with a fully loaded pistol. Really, think about it. I did, it just seemed foolish. I’d trust maybe 1 out of 10. Do you honestly believe the pilots, or any other work group look around and see anything different? That’s not naïve, and for the life of me can’t see how you put logic to that making me a woman. –yikes- Again, police officers have years of training. Expecting a crew member to have these qualifications is not the answer. I don’t think that’s as far fetched as the “gas guy” or whomever. Hijacker holds a pocket knife at F/A, she shoots pepper spray in his eyes, drop the blind bastard off at the nearest airport, done.

Besides, I argued before that the real solution is within the government itself. A little preventative terrorist campaign makes these issues mute because there aren’t bad guys with elaborate plans hijacking planes.


So I am wrong, so what. You can’t sue me. It's not about being right or wrong. It's all opinion anyways.

[Pongo]

Creamo.
Certainly replacing hundreds of overhead compartments would be a bigger cost then the new door and supporting structure?

jedi.
Every added member that has to be on the terrorist team makes it more likely to be detected. any increase in armement makes it more likey to be detected.

Is the airmarshall concept a perfect security measure.. no. In combination with bulkheads for the cockpit. Increased awarenss on the ground and in the air and a new attitude as to the consequences of surrenduring the aircraft I think a much higher level of security can be achieved.

[Creamo]

That bin upgrade was for 3 fleet types Pongo. We have something like 11, depending what we have just permanently retired.

A door replacement which would be a bandaid fix, might not be too costly. To mod the surounding structure would be a a bit.

I'm all for that, more work before we hit the streets.