Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on October 27, 2004, 08:52:43 AM
-
I sit and enjoy good conversations on Thursday evenings with a pilot for Alaska Airlines at the local soccer field while practice for our kids is taking place. We've been good friends now for 3 years since introduced via sports since he has a son the same age as mine.
Anyway, I brought up the discussion of Air Marshals. I asked him if they introduce themselves before a flight (stupid question now that I think about it) and he said yes. "How often do they fly? 1 of 3 flights, 2 of 3? whats the average?" He said his routes vary, but generally speaking 1 of 2 flights is the average. Its dependant on where they fly. When they fly to Las Vegas, or DC, its 100% of the flights. When they fly to Alaska, its probably 1 of 3 flights. He mentioned when the new law came out allowing U.S. airline pilots to pack a weapon, that Alaska Airlines told the Pilots that anyone that packs would be fired. The pilots union straightened out Alaska Airlines new policy, and reversed it. He mentioned that he nor many of his fellow pilots carry because of the all the hassles (he didn't elaborate on "all the hassles")
His main concern today, along with fellow pilots, are Manpads. One manpad would probably bring air travel to its knees worse than 9/11 and lead to a global economic turn down worse than that post-9/11.
-
Pardon my ignorance...
Manpads??
-
Originally posted by Modas
Pardon my ignorance...
Manpads??
A man-portable surface-to-air missile.
-
The risk of a hijack these days is next to nil, aware passengers, airport screening, and cockpit doors are enough. Guns & air marshall are a waste of money. Also what will happen if a pilot with a gun goes beserk? There's nothing his fellow crew members can do in that case.
-
What happens if a cop or a soldier goes beserk with his or her weapon? Should they all be disarmed as well Mora?
Of course, the only answer is NO GUNS IN THE WORLD AT ALL!
I always laugh at your argument Mora. Ya, DON'T LET THE PILOT BE ARMED, IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN AND MAY SAVE ONE LIFE, IN CASE HE WENT BESERK!!!!
Ya, OR, he could always just **** up his landing and crash the aircraft into the ground. Hey, you didn't think of THAT did you. Maybe they should take away the pilot's plane in addition to his weapon, that way, we wouldn't have to worry about him going nuts and doing something rash.
-
Soldiers and cops carry guns beacause the bad guys carry them too. The fact is that it's impossible to get a gun onboard an aircraft. There have been several cases where pilots have deliberately tried to bring down an aircraft, and yes in many cases they have succeeded. If they would have all carried guns they would have been 100% succesful.
I've got nothing against against guns or a desire to ban them, so you can quit SHOUTING, you REDNECK. There's just no need for them in an aircraft these days, and they might create some problems while not solving any. If the aircraft is operated in an enviroment, where an absolute security cannot be guaranteed, it's a totally different thing.
-
"The fact is that it's impossible to get a gun onboard an aircraft."
Well, having trained with the guys in the Air Marshall service, having one of the instructors from my school being one of thier Chief instructors, and being an X ATC myself, I'll have to disagree with your expert opinion on this.
Do you have ANY idea how untrue and disproven your above statement is? Even discounting the human element of things, such as, oh, say, a member of an extremist group getting a 10$ an hour job as a security officer, or somebody bribing one, sneaking a weapon past security isn't rocket science, certainly a long way from impossible, and security exercises have regularly proven that the first line of defense breaks down rather easily. This absolute security you refer to is far from absolute.
Alert passengers and crew won't matter for a second if multiple threats armed with weapons get anywhere near the cabin area. The "re-enforced doors"...ya, I'm not going to talk about anything regarding this on the internet, but the guys here who are pilots will understand why. The point is, the pilot is responsible for the safety of his aircraft, the passengers, and now the potential targets his aircraft can hit on the ground. A weapon loaded with frangible ammunition is nothing to be afraid of, the pilots aren't just issued them without any formal training. It's no different than having a Marshall on board, other than that the pilot is ALWAYS there, the Marshall is not (of course, not all pilots are carrying weapons, watch that change if there is another hi-jacking someday).
People with your attitude Mora have been lulled into a place of false security. Go back to the Sept 12 or 13 2001, remember how you and we all felt, and see if your opinion makes sense.
-
Mora is graced with the ability to function without any encumbrance of reality. His masterful disregard for reasoned arguments is a testament to his zenlike detachment from the confines of rational thought.
-
While it is very, very hard for a passenger to get a gun on a plane, I would hesitate at saying it is impossible. Never say never.
Sounds like this pilot has a very real assessment of what his threats are. It would'nt take a stinger to down a commercial flight. An RPG has the range to hit a plane at low alt (take off or approach).
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Mora is graced with the ability to function without any encumbrance of reality. His masterful disregard for reasoned arguments is a testament to his zenlike detachment from the confines of rational thought.
At least I don't go to a 3rd world country when I need a surgery...
I'm not disregarding any arguments here. I just clarified my point after one childish rant. Maybe you could come up with a reasonable argument instead of a personal attack?
-
Cell phone pistols for Mora (http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_cell_phone_guns.htm)
-
Originally posted by mora
Soldiers and cops carry guns beacause the bad guys carry them too. The fact is that it's impossible to get a gun onboard an aircraft. There have been several cases where pilots have deliberately tried to bring down an aircraft, and yes in many cases they have succeeded. If they would have all carried guns they would have been 100% succesful.
I've got nothing against against guns or a desire to ban them, so you can quit SHOUTING, you REDNECK. There's just no need for them in an aircraft these days, and they might create some problems while not solving any. If the aircraft is operated in an enviroment, where an absolute security cannot be guaranteed, it's a totally different thing.
I'm sorry to be the one to break it to you, but govornment agents have repeatedly managed to sneak weapons, including guns, past inspectors at airports. It is not only possible, it has happened. No criminals have managed it yet, that anyone knows of. Thank God. One of the big reasons the TSA is being phased out at airports around the country is because over and over again they scored no better than private security forces in screening.
I tend not to support guns onboard planes, but not because I believe planes are safe from terrorists. It IS hard to get a gun on a plane. Not impossible, but damn hard. One guy, with one gun is a threat, yes. But he can only shoot so many bullets and so many rounds per second, etc. Even with a spare clip, really stretching believability, he gets what, 20 rounds? How many people are on a commercial flight? Add another gun to the mix now. Not out where he can get it, but locked away. Or in the hands of a lone air marshal. Who is going to start the shooting? Whoever the good guy is, he has one target. The terrorist has around a hundred.
You remove every gun from a plane but the one the terrorist has, the odds are against him. This isnt like it was in the 70s when the passengers had a chance of living if they did what the guy with the gun demanded. Everyone remembers what happened on 9/11/01. That guy uses up his bullets, he's still gonna have a whole lot of pissed off people to deal with, and no more weapon. And with the reinforced cockpit doors now, I dont care how many people he shoots, no pilot in his right mind is going to open that door. He's going to land at the first airport.
Obviously an airplane is a unique situation. And the reasons for not having extra weapons in that situation are sound. The same doesnt apply in many other scenarios, and even here there are multiple possibilities that could argue the presence of a gun in friendly hands would work well. I just think the dangers outweigh the benefits.
-
Originally posted by mora
At least I don't go to a 3rd world country when I need a surgery...
If that's a shot, it's a miss. My surgery went great, and I've lost a boatload of weight. A friend of my wife had the same procedure last weekend and it also went very well.
Originally posted by mora
I'm not disregarding any arguments here. I just clarified my point after one childish rant. Maybe you could come up with a reasonable argument instead of a personal attack?
Taking a shot at my surgery isn't a 'childish' attack? Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.
You've been presented with rational arguments but cognitive dissonance prevents you from seeing that as such. A pilot already holds everyones life in his hands. He hardly needs a pistol to kill, yet there's no epidemic of passenger planes being plowed into the ground by airline pilots, for some reason.
What's the sound that a century of commercial airflight history makes when it cuts your assertion in half?
-
I love how Mora berates others for "personal attacks" right after he pulls one on me.
"Redneck"...ya..
Back on topic, I agree with RPM, you hardly need a sophisticated MANPAD to due damage, I could find two dozens spots here by the airport where an RPG would more than do the trick, and well they don't turn up all the time, LAW's have surfaced here in Western Canada on more than one occassion when a soldier didn't shoot it during a training X and just snuck it home.
-
Mora, not only are you wrong, you are adding to your problem by acting like an arse with all your insults...
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Taking a shot at my surgery isn't a 'childish' attack? Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.
Yes it is, but I didn't start it...:)
As I said before there are numerous cases of pilots doing or attempting suicides, and most times they have unfortunately succeeded with a great loss of life.
I believe the potential risks for loss of life by arming pilots is greater, than by a terrorists getting a gun onboard or one succeeding in a hijacking even if he or she gets a gun onboard. Both scenarios are highly unlikely.
-
Originally posted by Gman
I love how Mora berates others for "personal attacks" right after he pulls one on me.
"Redneck"...ya..
Infact I was just demonstrating how stupid you looked. I'm sorry you missed it.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Mora, not only are you wrong, you are adding to your problem by acting like an arse with all your insults...
I took a shot back after I was insulted, I don't feel there was anything wrong with that. As for the "REDNECK" comment see my reply above.
Geez, you all seem to be on edge here.
-
Originally posted by mora
As I said before there are numerous cases of pilots doing or attempting suicides, and most times they have unfortunately succeeded with a great loss of life.
Ok, if there are numerous cases, then cite 3.
-
Egyptair, JAL, FedEx, And possibly Silk Air comes to mind.
-
the idea is to have the advantage not to compete with the skyjackers on equal terms. 4 of them with boxcutters are no match for one armed and trained marshal. When the 4 guys with boxcutters jump up and one sky marshal jumps up with a gun.... I am gonna lend my help to.... the marshal. If no one jumps up I might hesitate a bit attacking 4 boxcutter weilders with my bare hands. It is proven time and time again.... when an officer is in trouble that bystanders risk death to help but... they rarely initiate the attack against armed criminals.
star... you have good points but... you say that if a skyjacker had a 20 round clip... or 15 or whatever... that is all the damage he could do and that adding guns to the mix only increases the danger.. maybe but... most gunfights last only a few rounds... turkey shoots of unarmed sheep last as many rounds as there are bullets for the armed nutcase. If the only person on the plane armed is the bad guy, whether with gun or other implement.... you pretty much got to go along with his plan.
If the pilot wants to comit suicide and take everyone with him... or if a meteorite is gonna strike the plane.... it won't matter much if the pilot is armed or not.
lazs
-
Do you think that pilot's should get out of the cockpit and start a gunfight with a hijacker?
Yes the change of a mentally ill pilot killing people is extremely unlikely, but has happened with hunderds of victims. So is the change of a succesful hijack these days. Not that I would be worried about those things when I get onboard an aircraft.
Edit: A few links:
http://aviation-safety.net/database/1982/820209-0.htm
http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2002/aab0201.htm
http://aviation-safety.net/database/1994/940821-1.htm
I agree that at least in the two latter cases there wouldn't have been any difference in the outcome if the pilot would have had a gun. There are several more cases also, one could only speculate about the unsuccesful attempts because they aren't that widely reported.
-
mora... no I don't. not unless there is a danger that he (the skyjacker)could bring down the aircraft from the passenger part. I think he should lock hiself in and defend his controls and his ability to fly the plane. I believe the air marshal should do the passenger compartment work.
lazs
-
you don't have to use bare hands against box cutters, as the flight attendant says. "your seat bottom is a floatation device".
floatation device=shield
morea thinks if only the criminals have guns , they will not use them, oh brother.
i would like to take my own gun on a plane, with proper frangable ammo of course. don't worry , i always hit what i'm aming at.
the only time i heard of a pilot deliberately crashing a plane was that islamic nut flying for egypt air.
-
Maybe you boys would like to read about a foiled attempt at taking over an airplane. 2 pilots, one flight engineer and one deadheading crewmember were the only occupants on board a FedEx MD-11.
Here (http://www.tailstrike.com/070494.htm)
-
No, Mora thinks that the FedEx counts even though it was a passenger, not the pilot. Also, they never figured out if the EgyptAir was pilot induced, they guessed it might because the guy was praying at the end.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
the idea is to have the advantage not to compete with the skyjackers on equal terms. 4 of them with boxcutters are no match for one armed and trained marshal. When the 4 guys with boxcutters jump up and one sky marshal jumps up with a gun.... I am gonna lend my help to.... the marshal. If no one jumps up I might hesitate a bit attacking 4 boxcutter weilders with my bare hands. It is proven time and time again.... when an officer is in trouble that bystanders risk death to help but... they rarely initiate the attack against armed criminals.
star... you have good points but... you say that if a skyjacker had a 20 round clip... or 15 or whatever... that is all the damage he could do and that adding guns to the mix only increases the danger.. maybe but... most gunfights last only a few rounds... turkey shoots of unarmed sheep last as many rounds as there are bullets for the armed nutcase. If the only person on the plane armed is the bad guy, whether with gun or other implement.... you pretty much got to go along with his plan.
If the pilot wants to comit suicide and take everyone with him... or if a meteorite is gonna strike the plane.... it won't matter much if the pilot is armed or not.
lazs
For the most part I agree with you lazs. I wouldnt mind so much the Air Marshal being there and armed, since I know a couple guys who have gone into the program and I know they are pretty well trained when to reveal their presence, when to use the gun and when to sit still and keep their mouths shut and pretend to be "just another passenger." I also agree that if the guy is armed, no matter if its a gun or a box cutter, its going to be hard to get a group together to attack him. I mean, somebody's probably gonna die if he has a gun. Nobody wants to be the guy in the front. The main point I wanted to make was against just having guns on the plane (even for the pilot). This isnt the old days when a hostage could fool himself or herself into thinking if they just sit still and shut up that they will sit on some runway in Cairo for a day or two and have a good chance of surviving. It'll be "the other guy" that will get shot as an "example". These days if they hijack a plane, you have to at least consider its a good bet that you are going to be part of this guy's protest against the land of 2 cars in every garage and apple pie, and die anyway. Just like the people in that plane in Pennsylvania, if I'm gonna go anyway I'd like to think at the end that maybe I kept somebody else, or maybe a whole lot of somebody elses from dying too. If nothing else, simple survival instinct has to kick in at some point and say if you have a chance at surviving, it depends on this guy waving the gun/knife/box cutter/plastic fork around taking a header into the floor, and being unable to get back up again. Given the actions of people on flights that have been "disturbed" since 9/11, I dont think its too far fetched.
With a trained Air Marshal to lead things, I have no doubt you'd find plenty of volunteers willing to take a chance and get to slug a terrorist. Without one, I think having a gun in the cockpit is a moot point. You'd have to open the door to use it, and at that point you allow Mr. Terrorist a chance to get in. Just nullifies the whole concept of reinforcing the cockpit door so no-one can bust in. Plus, you potentially give the terrorist access to that many more bullets if you dont succeed in taking him down. The best thing a pilot can do for his passengers is land the dang plane at the first airport and let a SWAT team or DELTA Force or Chuck Norris or whatever deal with him.
-
soa.... I don't think we are too far off on agreement.... when the first airliners crashed into the WTC I said on these boards that we needed strong doors between the passengters and the pilots... I also said we needed to start up the air marshal program again... I believe that the pilot should fly the plane no matter what... the terrorists vote shouldn't count..
he (the pilot) should be armed to make sure his vote counts. Just like the amendments to the constitution.... the 2nd is for when all the others fail. The pilot shouldn't come out even if the bad guys are bar b queing babies back there...
so... who is left? passengers? like I said... no one wants to be first. pay someone to be first and then arm him. fortunately... the airlines and the government agrees with me for once. It is working.
lazs