Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: lazs1 on September 12, 2001, 02:27:00 PM
-
Yep, the fact that this could have all been prevented so easily makes me even more angry and sad.... The sky marshal program that was so sucessful that it was deemed to be a needless expense..
Instead... we have a few terrorists with plastic knives causing the deaths of thousands.. We can't prevent someone fom bringing weapons on board but we can prevent them from being successful in taking over the plane.
Let's face it... unless we are naive morons... no one ever feels "safe" from a skyjacking just because some bored rent a cops at the airport security station run us through a metal detector.. We all know that the only thing that saves us from a skyjaking and the fate of those that died yesterday is .... sheer luck of the draw.. we count on our good luck to get us through.. 0nly an idiot would feel safe with a security programn that guarentees that the only people with weapons will be the bad guys.
If I am unable (disarmed) to defend myself on a flight then.... i want the next best thing. I want to know that a couple of unidentified sky marshalls are on board and armed to the teeth and trained to the hilt with orders to take all action needed.
I am so proud of the brave people who apparently wrested control of one of the airliners from the terrorists. They are true heros. I only wish they had not had to.
I am not a big supporter of big government but... i feel that the armed forces are the pervue of a government... In this new war of terrorism I feel that sky marshalls would, and should, be part of the army in the war against terrorism.
Bring back the Sky Marshal program.
lazs
-
I agree with this completely.
-
Yep.
-
The Sky Marshal program was good but a simple improvement could be made to improve safely. WALL OFF THE PILOTS FROM THE PASSENGERS! Give them a separate entry door and there own facilities. Flight attendants have a key to the cockpit door on a chain. Terrorist subdues flight attendent and can open door to cockpit. Even if there was a bomb on board or a threat on board the pilot in command can remain in command and not have a repeat of what happened yesterday. There are a lot of good things we can do to prevent this in the future. Sky Marshals, Cockpit Door Security,(some won't like this....no walk on items....everything is checked.) tighter baggage handling checks and FAA employees on Security not Airline employees.
Thunder
-
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 ]
-
Sounds great Lazs. It will make flights more expensive but I doubt it will be that big of an increase.
-
I'd vote yea for such a program...
-
I'm thinking $5 a ticket would way more than cover it.
Last time I heard, BOTH of the pilot crew costs accounted for about $8-10 per flight on average.
-
Look... it really isn't about the customers anyway... It's about the potential damage that can be inflicted on the people on the ground that have nothing to do with the flight or cost thereof..
The reason I don't need to be licenced or pay extra to fly ultralights is simple.... I can't do any damage to inocents. Or, any more say than a mountain biker or rock climber could.
besides... I'm not looking at it that way.. I'm thinking thsat the marshalls will be federal troops... Part of the "army" in the war on terrorism. All the airlines would be out is the seats they take up. Either way tho... It is the only viable solution besides letting citizens defend themselves.
lazs
[ 09-12-2001: Message edited by: lazs1 ]
-
yep, locked down cockpits with microwave and fridge inside the cockpit to provide the pilots with their needs, ability to fill the cabin with sleep gas that works when inhaled AND through contact with the skin that could be activated from the cockpit or remotely from a tower controller or some secure entity (pilot cabin airtight..would be kinda dumb to doze the pilots out lol), air marshall and tighter airport security.
Screw it if I have to pay 50 bucks more for my ticket, at least im assured of a high degree of security.
-
Also I would like to fly in a special passenger class above First Class. My class would be Ejection Seat Class. This is the only class in which I would fly on a Bell 609, and now I'm thinking it might be nice for domestic airlines as well.
-
Well not to say I disagree with the sky marshall deal. But in 99.99% of all skyjackings the safest thing to do was to cooperate. That is until these ones. But if a Marshall was on the plane when a Hyjacking took place, and he fired his revolver in defense of the aircraft what happens if he blows out a window? What if the HiJacker with an MP5 blows him away along with 3 passengers? Adding more guns to the situation I do not think is the answer. It is a tough one without a doubt. The walled off cockpit sounds good. But the Terrorists can just start killing passengers until the pilots conform to their demands but it would be a whole lot easier for the pilots to control the situation. There is a downside to everything you propose as there is in all life. Sometimes you just have to accept some risks.
Razor
[ 09-12-2001: Message edited by: vmfRazor ]
-
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 :p . Necessity is the mother of invention. Be innovative and creative. :)
oct
[ 09-12-2001: Message edited by: Octavius ]
-
I agree that preventive measures within our aviation system will be helpful, but those changes will not resolve the real problem at hand - the mere fact that terrorists are even allowed to exist in world-wide organizations!!! Perhaps we can make our airplanes (apparently) 100% safe. But, what about our neighborhoods, office buildings, schools, parks, endless miles of freeways and rail road tracks...???
It is high time that the U.S.A. and its allies nip the problem in the bud by officially declaring war on terrorist factions and supportive governments all over the world. If you don't like the methods that these terrorist groups are using today, imagine what they'll be like in 20-years if they are allowed to proceed with business and training as usual!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Enduro
:mad:
-
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.
-
When did the air marhall prrrogram end?
-
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.
-
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 :p . Necessity is the mother of invention. Be innovative and creative. :)
oct
[ 09-12-2001: Message edited by: Octavius ]
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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 (http://www.the-mechanic.com/3rd_party_maint.html)
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 ]
-
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- ]
-
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.
-
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.
-
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! :)
-
I think streakeagle is on the right track concerning the codes. Why not implement a system where the pilot programs his flightpath and then sets a code that will not allow the air liner to deviate very far from its path unless the code is re-entered by the pilot. Basically the plane would be on auto pilot during the flight until time to land. Seems a system like this would not be too costly to set up. Its main function would be to prevent terrorists from taking over and using the plane as a guided missle.
Les
SC-Bama
-
Look... the airlines can only succed in disarming the law abiding (a microcosm of the whole country)... they will never prevent a hijacker from getting on a plane armed. In this case it was with plastic knive that anyone can buy and NO feel good, useless, "tightened security" would have prevented. Powerful, well trained terrorists could simply grab a stewardess, break her neck with their bare hands and while she is dropping, grab another and threaten to break her neck... ypu don't even need "weapons".
In those cases.. the terrorists would be confronted with trained sky marshalls and in affect be taking a plastic knife to a gunfite.
Advances in handgun projectiles have reduced penetration while increasing their ability to incapacitate or kill. If, A terorist get's on board with an MP5... I believe he is up to nothing that will be good for the passengers. It would be best if he were shot.
I believe toad is right tho... people are easily coned into believing that their world can be a safe place if all the "weapons" are made illeagal. those of us who know better or have the brains god gave gophers, will simply squeak and fly anyway knowing that we are not trusting to "security" so much as luck of the draw every time we fly.
I know policemen look at it in a professional and experianced way but... the sky marshall and the aircraft situation do not match the street... The sky marshal would be anonomous and have all the time in the world to draw and fire on a nylon knife weilding crazy.
I have heard that yesterday, I bill was drafted to reinstate the air marshall programn.. Apparently it still exists but is a shell of it's former self.
The airlines succeded in disarming every single law abiding passenger in all four of the airliners involved. The unbelievably brave passengers of the plane that was retaken did so with their bare hands. They did so with absolutely zero help from all the airport security. They were disarmed and left to their own devices. left to face armed terrorists. No amount of "hightened sucurity" will change that. It is illeagal to have weapons in prison and the security is pretty good.. Are you telling me you can't get stabbed in prison?
It is a myth that "not resisting" is a good plan. In the U.S. at least 2.5 million crimes per year are stopped by the use of a firearm. Like it or not, that is the world we live in. the crima\inals will allways be armed when they want to be. We can only be prepared to meet their force with a level higher. To meet it with a level lowere is folly.
Sky marshalls on 75% of all flights would assure that it was impossible for anyone to know what flights had em and what didn't. Not to mention... there would be armed (concealed carry) sky marshalls at airports all over the world as they were changing planes.
lazs
-
Well said Lazs! <S>
-
I agree with you 100% Laz! I keep thinking about the door to the cockpit again. We heard something like this from the transcript yesterday.
- "get out of here!" <shuffle> <shuffle> close mike...
- "get out of here!" click
- in an arabic accent.. "This is the Captain, remain calm!
- there is a bomb on board, Take your seats we are returning to the airport.
If there had been a Sky Marshall on board he may have been able to prevent it.
If there had been no door the HiJackers would have not been able to gain control of the pilots seat. A Sky Marshall and/or passengers may have subdued the hijakers. But in either case the fight for control would not have taken place IN the cockpit. Some, if not all, of the passengers may have returned and not parrished. I feel that there some brave people on board. The facts seem to indicate they knew that other flights had been used as guided bombs. They seem to have made a determined choice that saved many lives outside the plane.
Creamo,
You posted...
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.
Being a aircraft flight mechanic doesn't automatically make you the sage of aircraft knowledge. I have spoken to other pilots and mechanics that that work for the same company you do and don't share your opinion. I respect and agree with some of what you are putting forth. However, in view of what has just happened, the Airline Industry and the general public may NOT have the final say in this matter. Being "clueless" in my mind would be someone who maintains that things are fine just the way they are because of a few dollars.
Thunder
Thunder
-
Then those mechanics and pilots aren't clueless, they fall into the stupid catagory Thunder.
Our industry is about to be hit, and hit hard.
----
[ 09-13-2001: Message edited by: Creamo ]
-
As it should be Creamo!
Changes ARE needed!
-
The reason this attack worked is because few people ever believed terrorists would fly a plane into a target. Pilots are trained to submit to terrorists' demands as the best way to try to save passengers lives.
This changes all the rules.
Will people armed with plastic knives be able to take over planes again? I doubt it. Passengers, who in the past would sit tight and hope for the best, now know they have nothing to lose and lots to gain by fighting back.
Will cockpits remain open. I doubt it. As someone observed in an earlier posting, the cost-conscious airlines are likely to have little say when lawmakers sit down to start reformulating the rules. A powerful lobby works when the public is complacent, but outrage among constituents has a way of getting a politicans attention.
Will all this help. A little. But the big crash the airliner into a building plan has been done. The people who want to do us harm are probably already looking at other areas where we are complacent that they can exploit to hurt us.
What do we need to do?
Find, identify and kill their leaders.
The world will always be filled with people who hate and want to do harm, there's little we can do to stop that. But doing harm on a massive scale isn't easy. No matter how much we want to admit it, it takes lots of brains and money to pull off a successful big terrorist attack. There aren't a lot of people around who have the talent or charisma to do that. Those are the folks we need to exterminate.
If there is one silver lining to this dark cloud covering our nation today it is that the rules have changed. In the past we were content to arrest and prosecute the soldiers who were sent to carry out the attacks. Let's hope our leaders now know that they must find and attack the generals and mob bosses who planned these events.
Americans are now like a patient who has skin cancer _ they had hoped by cutting out the damaged skin they could control the disease. Now they appear ready to withstand the pain of chemotherapy to wipe out the cancer entirely.
-
Any way to override the control of the aircraft from the ground would be suseptable to hacking. very bad idea.
Haveing a large supply of incapacitating gas on the aircraft is also a very questionable idea.
The airmarshals are an exellent idea. Shoot outs? We are susccessful in keeping guns off of the planes...these guys used knives, certainly the max bang for buck is achieved by air marshalls.
I would say 2 per plane. one plain cloths one in uniform. Uniform officer is in body armour. and armed with some highly visible weapon.
Both have some independent comunications to the ground.
So we are talking about hiring 10000 guys and arming them and putting them on AC. Lets be carful how we hire them.
An interesting asside is that here will be turban wearing airmarshalls in canada...Our federal gov allows sikks to wear their turbans as it is a religios requirment..
that will raise some eyebrows having an armed turban wearing officer on the plane..
-
Alright Thunder…heh.
I did not claim to being a “sage” of aircraft as a mechanic, I do know the pointy end with windows is the front. Besides, what’s this hijack issue got to do with the airworthiness of a airplane? If you’re a flight attendant, or a flight dispatcher, whatever, doesn’t make you a industry expert, much like I doubt anyone is asking Sammy Sosa to manage the Cubs or run the GM office, or commission MLB for that matter.
However, I do read airline related newspaper articles, and closely watch the airline companies battle with it’s labor groups, make deals with the government, and try and slide by every rule they can to cut a penny. In addition, for some time, have watched the price wars and competition of the various US carriers. That entitles me to somewhat of an opinion when people announce all these “steal cockpit door”, “build a wall between the crew” and “sky police” solutions. It’s all about money, your friends can’t change that, no matter what they do for a living. In fact, some of these solutions are so far from reality, because clueless seems to be taken insulting, I’ll modify that to extremely naïve.
Do you believe for a second that they will modify a modern airliner as much as having separate crew entry doors, and facilities? Your talking billions and billions of dollars before the airlines lose that much more while they are modified on the ground. All this secure cockpit theory is a bit much, yet you believe it? They are going to bolt in the crew like a Apollo mission and tell them to be careful, don’t smoke in there or it could get real nasty? Did you ask my fellow co-workers that one? How in the hell does the crew escape from a much more probable problem, as in fire, smoke, or a crash? Take a 737, add another door, another lav, and somehow stretch it to accommodate these features, or just remove seats? Oh brother…
Like I said, the dollar has killed more people before the FAA was forced to make the companies bite the bullet. This Tuesday was a once in a lifetime event.
There are solutions Im sure, and I think Im “sage” enough on the “obvious” that it’s not going to get solved here, nor is this the place to discuss it. I’ll leave it be. Off to OffTopic. (Although I would like detailed blueprints of your “no door” cockpit theory on my desk by noon. It does sound interesting.) :)
-
OCTAVIOUS!! that IS BRILLIANT!! I THink that THIS IDEA is utterly the greatest I have heard of YET!
yes WE should Have the Pilots COMPLETELY sealed away from the passengers with thier own facilites and the IDEA of GASSING the Passengers / Hijackers is Truely amaziing!
The only thing we would have to ultimately check for now is gas masks being carried aboard aircraft (along with the usual , weapons of course)
I think that you should run with this Idea,, its surely the FIRST I have heard of it.. (the gas part)
:)!!
-
Don't Israeli airliners have a crew compartment sealed by two heavy doors? It just doesn't make sense to have only a flimsy plastic door between the passengers and crew.
I don't know much about airliner design or maintenance, but I suspect beefing up cockpit security this way is a retrofit that will be given a lot of consideration in the coming weeks.
-
Unity is the answer.
The people of America can stop this.
for example, the Penn flight.
this was probably the result of heroic actions by a few of the passengers to overthrow the hijackers.
Vigilance and awareness will help. I can't count how many times I've witness people ignoring obvious threats to security of the country because 'it didn't involve them.
time to wake up..
this is one world and we are all affected.
-
You son-of-a-sweety, Tronski. :mad: Just keep your face glued to your TV set over there in safe little Australia, and you'll see what kind of f*cking war I'm talking about!!!!!!!!! Just be glad you're not going to be on the receiving end of our tactical response.
U smart-ass pr*ck!
Originally posted by -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- ]
-
DO SOMETHING!
Right now, send some email to your congressman and senators urging meaningful security procedures. You can find their email addresses at:
www.senate.gov (http://www.senate.gov) www.house.gov (http://www.house.gov)
A lot of the "increased security" measures being talked about in the press would have done NOTHING to prevent the hijackings of Sep. 11th. For example, prohibiting non-ticketed passengers from entering the gate areas or more elaborate luggage checks would have affected these terrorists not at all. Determined terrorists will be able to kill flight crews with such mundane items as keys or with their bare hands if necessary. The only thing that will be effective is having armed law enforcement present who are equipped and willing to use deadly force.
I have seen messages similar to the following being distributed via the internet and have sent such messages to my congressmen earlier today.
I realize that additional security for air travel will be implemented but I am terribly concerned that the new security measures will be ineffective. The only answer to this is to provide armed law enforcement personal on aircraft that can use force to stop the terrorists and to provide a way to secure the cockpit area so that terrorists cannot gain access.
I consider it absolutely imperative to arrange that sky marshals are present on every flight and that some sort of security bulkhead is placed in the aircraft so that the cockpit is sealed off during flight and can only be opened from the cockpit side.
A lot of the proposed measures for increased security that I have recently read would have done nothing to avert the tragedies of Sep. 11. Please do your utmost to see that MEANINGFUL security measures are adopted.
Respectfully,
[ 09-13-2001: Message edited by: Hooligan ]
[ 09-13-2001: Message edited by: Hooligan ]
-
yeah... sleeping gas is a greast solution so long as you don't mind killing a few infants, old people and those alergic to the gas as well as those who migh choke to death, have falling injuries etc.
creamo... being a cynic I tend to look at this much as you do but... I have a feeling that this event is so huge that if will convince even the most brainless among us that no amount of pissant "hightened security" will do a damn thing once the wheels lift off the runway.
Now... It's no longer about what the passengers are willing to pay. those on the ground now realize just what a flying bomb that airliner over them is and will demand that there be some ARMED law enforcement on those flights.
surprisingly.... no one has hit on the possible flaw to the program.... It will do no good if foreign airlines don't have a sky marshal program. I have come to the conclusion tho that unless an airline has an approved sky marshal program.... they not be allowed over U.S. airspace.
Look.... all the worthless "hightened security they are going to come up with will probly cost as much as the worthwhile and effective sky marshall program.
If you get on board a plane and the only possible group that is armed is the bad guys.... You are just rolling the dice. Your kidding yourself if you think otherwise.
lazs
-
I am all in favor of the "sky marshal" program. Let that be clear from the outset.
Just realize what you are asking for. My airline is primarily two pilot aircraft with maybe 100 three-seaters left that require about 700 Flight Engineers.
Bottom line is we need ~ 9000 pilots to man our schedule using roughly 600 aircraft (if they were all two-seaters).
OK, divide by half if you are going to put just ONE SkyMarshal on board (I think 2 is better). Now you are at 4500 SM's.
Further assume the SkyMarshal "Union" will not get duty rigs quite as good as the pilots have... more on the order of the Flight Attendants. So they won't need quite as many... maybe 3500 but more realistically about 4000.
Now multiply that by at least 4 airlines our size. There's 16,000 SM's.
Now the next 6 airlines in size probably account for 2-3 "major" airlines. So add another 8-12,000.
To cover every flight on the "top 10 airlines" you're going to need somewhere around 25,000-30,000 SkyMarshals. You want TWO on board? 50,000 to 60,000. We're just talking the top 10 here...
Of course, this is just a ballpark, "figured on the napkin" number. Could be smaller or larger but nonetheless, it's going to be a LOT of SM's. And that is just "Field Agents", guys on the plane... who knows how many "support personnel"... like trainers and schedulers and office workers...
Here's a data point: In late 1998, the FBI had 28,000 employees--11,500 Special Agents and 16,500 support personnel.
Like I said, I support the SkyMarshal program. Let's all just be clear on what we're asking for and what we're likely to get.
You want a faster response? Allow Cockpit Crew to carry. We already come to training every year, sometimes twice a year. Just add a day or two for "Sky Marshal" refresher courses.
Don't trust a pilot with a gun? But you'll trust him to hand fly an approach and landing with crosswinds so high it's beyond autopilot limits for landing but still within the airplane certification, right?
Who do you want to trust, the Sky Marshal that isn't there because they wouldn't fund him or hasn't been trained yet... or the guy who has devoted his life to being responsible for his passengers, crew and aircraft?
[ 09-13-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]
-
ahh missed that thunder :)
I certainly think that A "sky marshal" program or some other measure is needed. I fly too much ( I have no option) and I feel very vulnerable. I always had those fears but they were subsided in the back of my mind. Now with it painted so fresh in our minds...I can only hope that some of these Airlines and the US government ( ugh I hate the thought of more Government) will be involved in instituting something. There will be some huge changes in this industry, no doubt about that, I just hope they are meaningful.
-
Arming and training flight crew personal is a good idea IMO.
As far as to what this costs: As a country we are going to be spending billions of dollars dealing with this. Lets hope that most of that money is spent on effective measures like sky marshalls and not on useless and symbolic measures.
Hooligan
-
toad... i agree. First of all, we don't need every single flight covered but even 90% would be a lot of money.
As I said... I'm not a big government guy. I do think that the government should maintain an army. I believe that terrorism is an attack on the nation and that as such, the sky marshalls should be part of the army in the war on terrorism. Look at all the worthless BATF goons we got floatin around that nobody wants or needs. Everything they do is covered by some other agency.
I think sky marshalls are a good value for my military tax buck. bet more than a few of our countrymen would agree.
oh... plus, let's not forget.... there is NO other viable solution short of not allowing the planes to take off.
lazs
[ 09-13-2001: Message edited by: lazs1 ]
-
I agree with toad, on this .. I think Pilots SHOULD most definatly be able to carry weapons.
I really think that the Gas Idea however with a completey seperate compartment from the Crew is definatly the way to go though..
I would rather see someone fall down and hurt them selves as a result of the gas.
I think its better than the alternative.
Possibly a sky marshal that has gas mask on him so he can maintain control of the situation while the others are knocked out so to say.
I think that this would be a VERY good time that the pilots could quickly find somewhere to land and to then have the proper authorites.
I really think that the talk of all this money and shortages of people are sadening.
I actually find it Disgusting to hear that Currently the curbside luggage issue is only being started during this time of crisis, but things shoul return to normal eventually.
IM SORRY but "NORMAL" is what got us in this situation.
I keep hearing of Isreal's Security Ideals and practices, They sound like they are on top of thier SH^$. WHY shouldnt WE be?
Not to say I can speak from experience though. I hav never seen/experienced Isreali procedures.
anyway.. Definatly GOOD ideas here.. LETS not simply KEEP them ideas...
I Hope that most agree that NOW we should never become Complacent to Air travel, or Expect that NOthing should be wrong/everythings A-Okay.
Lets implement these Ideas.. and Get used to the inconvenience.. ITS FOR OUR SAFTEY!
<S>
-
Just a note here. Watching CNN, Mineta has called for Delta Force troops to be used as Sky Marshalls. (I forget if Mineta is in charge of FAA or NTSB)
This is a nice FAST way to get some highly trained people on board but when you think of the law enforcemenet angle, won't work.
1. It violates current law regarding military in civilian law enforcement.
2. These guys are rather easy to detect. They have distinctive haircuts and mannerisms. They won't be able to "blend in" with the passengers. To be effective they must be able to ambush the terrorists and put them down fast with minimum time / action. If they can be spotted easily they will be the ones ambushed first.
Having said all that I still think this is the only realistic way to fight a determined terrorist and keep them from using the plane as a weapon. The fight should be over BEFORE the terrorist gets to the cockpit.
Toad, I agree with you as far as arming the pilot crew is concerned. Both pilots SHOULD be highly trained in use of deadly force. The policy on aircrew usage of force will have to be reviewed. The crew will have to be PREPARED to USE the force when needed. Big item here. Just arming pilot won't elp if they don't take this seriously. It may also lead to an ambush of flight crew by terrorist who are prepared to fly themselves as in Tuesdays situation. I think it's far better the crew have the tools needed to at least fight back.
I think the days of "cooperate with the terrorist" are over.
Mav
-
Well Lazs I wasn't saying that I beleived all guns should be taken away that is ludicrous. I am not in favor of gun control of any means. And I agree with a firearm stopping crime. But in an airplane at 30K is alot different than in you're front yard.
As somebody pointed out in another post the rules for hijacking have changed. Up to this point most of the time they flew the plane around until their demands were met then released the hostages. That is the reasoning behind not fighting them in the air. But now the nutballs have it in their mind to crash into buildings.
I have no doubt that the other 3 planes would have met with the same resistance that the Penn. one did if the crews and passengers knew what their fate would be. Those on the flight had the info and realised they were doomed, so putting up a fight was their only option.
Another problem with arms on the airplanes are what if the hijackers don't have them to begin with, disable the marshal and now they do have a weapon. My brother is a corrections officer, and they aren't allowed to have weapons because of the possibility of a prisoner getting it. He is a deputy sherrif but his badge and nametag are sewn on patches they can't even have those made of metal.
Like I said originally, I am not against this. But these are valid points in my mind, and need to be addressed before they start implementing it. Just throwing marshalls on planes is not the answer IMO. The security on the ground does need to be stepped up big time. I heard them say that the people working the food counters in airports made more money than the security officers at the xray machines and had more training. That is the Biggest problem of all. The quality of the people responsible is not high enough. And a job like that is extremely easy to get Jaded and not pay attention. They need to rotate these people around to different jobs during their shift so their concentration is not dulled.
There is no wonder cure for everything that is wrong. The maoney aspect will be tough to overcome, but hopefully the govt. will force that issue.
Razor
-
Mav,
For a fast response, give me a double bar to prevent/delay the unauthorized entry into the cockpit and let us pack a Glock full of Glazers.
It's a start. Not the answer, but a start.
With what has happened, no one will enter the cockpit unauthorized anymore.
They may take it out on the pax but there won't be anymore crashing into buildings.
Once its on the ground, the local SWAT team can deal with them.
We have got to remove their capability to commandeer an aircraft; the sooner the better.
-
I apologize for punting this, but I just gotta point out how out of hand this is getting when people think pilots should carry guns.
I’m not sure what would scare me more than being on a flight with pilots that have a loaded weapon. Several images come to mind, some horrible, some almost comical. None that make any sense to arm these guys.
1. Terrorist goes onto plane unarmed. Grabs flight attendant and jams a knife from 1st class (they have them on board) into her jugular… skip the details. A pilot trained 1 or 2 days a year Toad? comes out with a gun to potentially shoot someone, blow a whole in the aircraft causing catastrophic decompression, or being ambushed by another terrorist. Now the terrorist has a gun, which he would have no access to before.
2. Pilot accidentally discharges weapon in cockpit. God knows it’s possible. The outcome could be as simple as a hole in the floor, or a badly damaged avionics display, or as mentioned above, fatal decompression. I know for a fact accidental discharge is possible. A cop from my home town shot himself in the ass, it happens. Another one shot the mirror in his bedroom practicing quick draws… heh, good lord.
Pilots are regarded as cowboys enough. I shiver thinking they would come marching down a jet bridge like Marshal Dillan, and have the ability to really screw up with a firearm. I think having a trained professional sky marshal may be feasible, but I highly doubt it will happen on domestic flights. Maybe at first, but the money thing… I’d guess no in the long term.
I’d rather see tighter security in the airports themselves. I even thought pepper spray in a grab n go, or sealed kit a flight attendant could open in a emergency would be sufficient to really ruin a hijackers day. In a closed compartment, they would be blinded till they could be subdued. Hey, mail carriers have them, seems like just about anyone could point and spray it. It would end a knife fight in a hurry. That toejam is mean.
-
Creamo, the day of the pilot coming out of the cockpit in the event of ANY pax disturbance is over.
I think sooner or later some F/A's and Pax are unfortunately going to have to die proving this to the terrorist community.
Cockpit doors are going to be beefed up, no question.
So, I believe the new policy is going to be get it down as fast as you can at the first sign of trouble. Do NOT leave the cockpit. Use any means necessary to prevent unauthorized entry into the cockpit.
I'm sure you like to characterize the pilots as Cowboys. You've shown you have a hard-on for pilots in general many, many times on this board.
Bottom line is the Pax put their lives in our hands everytime they step aboard. I think we've earned their respect as professionals, if not yours.
Tell me this... how would the Pennsylvania flight have turned out if the pilots had a truly strong cockpit door, a policy not to leave the cockpit no matter what and a gun to deal with anyone that did get through?
Who knows, those simple steps might have been enough to stop one or more of the other three as well.
It'll be YEARS before the SkyMarshal program gets up to even 20% flight coverage; you know it, too.
2 Days a year? Make it 4.. make it 10.. it's still faster and cheaper than waiting for SkyMarshals. You might have noticed.. there's a war on and we just lost the opening round.
Besides, pilots, by and large start out as sons of the lower and middle classes. Who do you think joins the military any way? Who else pays their way up through the civilian ranks flying checks around the country at midnight in a clapped-out Cherokee 6? Not the sons of the Rockefellers.
I'll wager over 50% of the guys I fly with are hunters... a lower and middle class sport for the most part in America. Familarity with guns isn't unusual, it's common. The military guys all qualified at some time or another, usually with pistol and rifle. Hell, I just flew with a guy that was on the USAF rifle team and still competes Nationally.
You can have your little fantasy of rootin-tooting Cowboy pilots popping off a few rounds accidentally but it's a fantasy and you know it. I flew with guys that had guns in their flight kit the first 5 years I was with the majors. Lots of Captains had them...never heard of a single accidental discharge.
We're professionals.. just like you.
If I impugned the integrity and professionalism of aircraft mechanics the way you routinely do with respect to pilots you'd be major league pissed.
It's time you admitted it's all rooted in jealousy and got the fork over it. You made your choice... now live with it without crying about it. Or, better yet, do something to change it.
-
Ok, fair enough. Arm doctors as well. I trust them way more with my life than a pilot.
Rant about whatever, you cowboys need to leave the gun shooting to trained personell, military or local law enforcment.
You'll shoot your eye out kid!
-
I really resent that Creamo you being an amazinhunk more than usual. Maybe not guns are neccesary inside the cockpit(which I do aprove of them having guns). But buying 5 more mins to land an aircraft in harm even if a couple of passengers and crew are killed,with strengthening cockpits.
I do agree passengers WILL NOT stand again for this toejam we won't be cooperative anymore, you have a bomb well diddly you you better blow us up,you have a knife we have the whole aircraft to land on your bellybutton and send it to Allah shrink rapped and cut in little pieces.
If it means hiking the prices so be it 10, 15, 30, a 100 more for a ticket is not a bother for many American citizens,the industry will be hit(me being somewhat affected also as a general aviation pilot).
Our infastructure is at stake, our sense of security is at stake, our way of living is at stake . I consider my self a right wing nut but this has been over the top this has affected me profoundly I cannot put more into words without hurting any particular group what has just happened.
Regardig the intelligence community they will need to pump more money into them authorize assasinations and major covert operations were American lives might be lost,and I think most of us are willing to take the sacrfice.
-
The Damned Airline suits have got the mechanics,flight crews and pilots fighting between themselves purposely. The public knows what they are doing, they're just screwing with the unions and they love this crap. Pay scale or what ever.. the pilot in comand is and must be the pilot in command. To be in command.. keep EVERYONE OUT and don't even have a door between the cabin and the cockpit. WALL IT TOTALLY OFF! I really beleive this would have possibly averted the entire tragedy. They may have got a bomb on board but not used the plane as a bomb and a weapon of mass destruction. The key is finding ways to preserve the command of the aircraft.
-
I’m not trying to be a salamander in this matter Glasses. I do take it serious, and only make a reference in jest when the solutions get so absurd. Enough to think that pilots as professionals are automatically qualified to carry weapons as suggested? That’s irrational. I know it sounds feasible to many, but it just so far from a probable solution, I spoke against it. To dispel the grief and hard feelings I unintentionally caused Toad, I made a ref. to a popular movie at an attempt to mellow the banter. That’s being civil, and an effort to not make a mockery of this serious situation. Interpret it as you will, I can’t change that.
Any references to the airlines being hesitant to make changes in safety are a fact. Not that they are negligent in every way mind you. It’s just stark reality that you can’t have 100% safe air travel. With unlimited resources, close, but reality and economics make it quite clear that it just can’t be, don’t blame me for this fact. WERE the flying public prepared to pay ticket prices 100% increased prior to this horrid event? Absolutely not. Granted, this is before this indescribable event. I’m still in shock. It’s almost hard to believe. I am assured changes will be made, but the point to be taken is it will have to come from our Government, as in most cases there is just to fine a line in airlines economics and business competition to just up and implement vast changes that could cost billions on their own. I won’t reference past cases of air disasters. It’s too involved.
The flying public may indeed now be more willing to see that airline travel should be as safe as possible, a expensive luxury if you will, as it was years ago, and pay accordingly. I would welcome this change as much or more than any casual reader here.
Plus it’s my opinion only that these tragic events are from a breakdown in government/military intelligence, not by airline cockpit procedures. Hence, I find the majority to the solutions posted to these problems to come from other than the airlines themselves.
There have been military cuts since the Clinton Administration. I’m all for new teachers and health care, but I think as you look as Tuesday’s horrible events unfolded, protecting our country takes precedence over EVERYTHING. You have 50 people planning something like this, and you not have not 1 leak of it? The US government had no clue. If the funding for intelligence is a priority and in place, this is still a movie. If we had taken terrorists as a enemy from the start, and didn’t mix in political rhetoric, striking these bastards without political consequence considered, this is still a fictional movie. I blame lack of political savvy to wipe out our enemies before the unthinkable.
So lets look at why I’m critical of some of the suggestions posted.
If we had strengthened cockpit doors, I can’t see much change. For instance, a 737 door on the normal lock mode where the knob won’t turn take takes 10 lbs of pressure to over come. Keeps people out from making a error from thinking it’s the bathroom door, that’s inches away. When it’s electronically locked, it takes 250lbs of force to over come it. Granted, if I ran down the aisle, I could smash in. So lets reinforce it to say 750 lbs. Now in a much more probable scenario, a normal cockpit crewmember is basically trapped in an emergency. A rescue crewmember is about as helpless opening it at that force. And STILL, you have blow out panels that must be installed to relief pressure in again, a more probable situation, as rapid decompression. 2 terrorists could pry still overcome this by blunt force, or exploit the blow out doors to harm the crew. Should we strengthen it more? I for the life of me can’t find a solution in that. There’s the head level blowout door that can be easily compromised, and safety of the crew to consider. It’s a safety related issue to the aircraft in NORMAL service. I welcome solutions to this. I just can’t find any.
As far as arming the crew, can any military professional, or peace officer please explain how important firearms are, and the years of training they go through making them responsible enough to effectively carry and use them? I consider police officers to be one of the most important and demanding professions period. I always thought hotshot pilots were considered “cowboys” in the military. If it’s a wrong reference, and was surely taken out of context. Pinning a firearm on them because they in fact care for their crew, passengers, aircraft, and that they are professionals in their field is still in my opinion, ridiculous. I respect them without hesitation, for the job they do day in and day out. They have to protect themselves, but where do you draw the line? Again, I see a pepper spray way more probable to a solution of self-defense. I don’t find that far fetched at all. Blinded terrorist can’t fly a plane, or have a knife fight. Do you find this easily implemented defense wrong? I’m more in tune to random sky marshals, although we have discussed the problems in manpower, cost, recognition, which would cause them to be the first targets, and how to implement them.
I know you, as many are deeply affected and saddened by this tragedy. When I pull into work, there are flowers anonymous locals have put on our AA company sign. It damn near brings you to tears. My job and livelihood by my company’s loss will certainly be affected in loss of our AA family, wage concessions, work shutdowns, and the industry crisis sure to come.
I don’t know how you paying more for a gallon of gas for your 150 makes you so much more insightful to call me an amazinhunk, but I’m open to intelligent discussion on solutions.
-
I agree Thunder, I just can't find a solution to how we can make that barrier feasable. Wish I did, it would help immensley.
-
Nice Creamo this is all I wanted a civilized discussion thank you.
-
LOL. I'll wager you any amount you'd like at 10 to 1 odds that doctors killed WAY more people than airline pilots did last year.
...and BTW, when I was "in", I qualified Expert every year with the handgun. In my squadron, each crew was carrying when we deployed. No accidental discharges in my entire squadron the whole time I was in.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/14/security.htm (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/14/security.htm)
"And the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) spent hours dealing with pilots concerned for their safety.
"I'm not sure how many pilots are going to go to work," said Steve Luckey, chairman of the group's national security committee. He said the group is pushing to fortify cockpit doors and likely will be "advocating some sort of weaponry in the cockpit. Firearms, tasers (stun guns), whatever is necessary."
"But even if the protocol is changed, pilots say they put little faith in the strength of cockpit doors. During the past few years, drunken passengers have kicked holes in the doors. Pilots say the doors could be forced open by four or five unarmed terrorists.
By law, those doors are designed to be broken relatively easily so that pilots can escape the cockpit in the event of an accident. But now, pilots see the doors as their last line of defense, and they say the doors must be strengthened to protect flight crews.
"We're advocating right now some retrofit stuff — bolts and whatever it'll take — to fortify that cockpit door," Luckey said."
Change is coming.
<EDIT>: BTW, I'm at work now. Everyone showed up for the flight deck crews; at least the ones that aren't stranded. It's all very orderly and controlled. A lot of police presence. There have been some issues with getting the F/A's to show up; heard of a cancellation last night on that account.
Lastly, if any "eye gets shot out" it'll be in the head of someone trying to illegally enter the cockpit. I think THAT is what most passengers would want and expect.
[ 09-14-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]
-
Ok, I give.
If you can get so defensive that a "Christmas Story" movie quote can get you so fired up your ready to compare “you’ll shoot your eye out kid” to you ready to kill someone by shooting them in the head with a firearm you pry don't even know how to clean, let alone aim, I can’t argue rational solutions.
Go for it Toad. Yee Ha to Miss Kitty too.
I see ALPA not only motivates and manipulates the company, but obviously the pilots in it’s masses as well.
Fortify yourselves, whatever makes you happy. The day you get a gun, is the day I change my career. I won't have obviously emotional persons such as yourself ready to shoot the next drunk that falls into a crew door.
Your obvious heated response to a rational argument solidifies my stance tenfold.
Good luck cowboy.
-
Yeah, I don't know how to clean a gun.
Yeah, qualifying as Expert six years in a row underlines the fact that I don't know how to aim.
Yeah, Creamo, the ALPA guys just dreamed all that stuff up. They aren't actually pilots themselves and they don't ever ask the rest of us what we want or need.
Yeah, "obviously heated". That's me. Don't like my posts without the smilies, do you? Get used to it; you don't deserve any smilies for this thread.
I'm sooo.....emotional. But then I'm not the one talking career change am I?
You can dish it old chum, but you can't take it. The green-eyed monster of jealousy is just eating your guts out, isn't it?
You probably do need a career change.
-
Keep Editing your post all you want Toad. Your rationalizing that doctors killed more people last year than airline pilots confirms how absurd your argument that pilots have the need and responsibility to carry and use firearms responsible. That’s so ridiculous. Have some respect for yourself.
As for you being a expert pistol marksman. Good for you. I bet that Hawaii flight F/O that was a nervous wreck when I asked her to dry motor a 757 engine for a O-ring leak check would have toejam her pants if I said “boo!” let alone asked her to fire a gun. I was patient and instructed her the procedure. Are these the ALPA members you want taking charge in a crisis? Someone who under an abnormal procedure can’t dry motor an engine?
And yes, maybe all the 15 year plus mechanics should change careers. This constant rhetoric by pilots like you with a imaginary jealousy pointed towards us is wearing thin.
I suppose you would you feel safer then with 3rd party contract maintenance, or first year mechanics signing off doors ready to fly off without bolts installed, or fires to start in your firearm equipped inescapable bunker? Since you don’t, ask your colleagues. I bet they aren’t on a flightsim gaming board wishing our skill demise when we state factual opinions on a matter such as this.
If your going to get pissy, be rational. It makes for a better argument to the ultimate solution.
-
punt
-
Basically, Creamo, the part about cleaning a gun and my marksmanship qualifications merely highlighted the fact that YOU are the one generalizing about things you simply have no information about.
Doctors? You brought up how safe they make you feel compared to pilots. Check the malpractice suit records for wrongful death.
Again, you don't know what you are talking about.
Need and responsibility? Check the lineage of that clear back to the early days of Ship Captains. There is only one "Master" of any vessel. Take a wild guess at who had the key to the arms locker.
Yeah, I've heard your many stories of how you've saved the day on engine ground runs and motoring. I'm sure the public believes that your airline trains, line checks and certifies pilots that don't know how to start the engines on their aircraft. Thank the Diety that you are there to get those motors running so they can get away from the gate; sure as heck, mere pilots couldn't manage such a difficult task.
I haven't heard that all mechanics want to change careers. Most of ours are pretty happy after the last raise. Actually, I only hear one that continually whines about how he "don't get no respect". Wonder why that is, eh?
...and yeah.. I'm SURE it's the PILOTS who are jealous of the MECHANICS in your little world. Unfortunately, you've posted your anti-pilot bias and bile a few too many times here for anyone else to believe it.
As for me wishing the demise of skilled mechanics, I'll just refer you to my most recent comments on the subject in a different thread. In fact, pick any thread you like where I've posted on the topic. I've always said mechanics are underpaid and under-respected. It's here in the archives on this BBS several times, once very recently.
If anyone is destroying your profession it's the bitter members that can't get the green-eyed monster of jealousy off their back.
You can try to paint my profession as a bunch of wild-eyed, emotional cowboys all you like. The traveling public obviously doesn't believe it. When the chips are down, they see who and what we are. Sioux City. Aloha's "convertible" 737. The United 747 out of Hawaii with the blown out door. I'm guessing the CVR's of the four the terrorists downed may well provide further proof.
Day in, day out our industry provides the safest form of mass transportation in the history of mankind. Speaks pretty well of all involved, I think.
But you keep trying to convince people pilots are all incompetent and crazy if it makes you feel better.
-
Ok, you can have your gun. You seem convinced.
Just don't ask for nickel plated with gold inscript. Thats tacky.
-
How about a man trap? ..If the pilot needs to take a pee he has to open the cockpit door move into the man trap (just a small room with a door at each end) and close it behind him, now he is able to unlock the door into the rest of the plane... only one door opens at a time so the cockpit can't be rushed...crew in the cockpit can see who is in the man trap (by CCD camera) and only they can open the door into the cockpit. If the plane is hijacked they should be able to lock down both doors (bullet proof?) and the cockpit crew should cut all coms to the rest of the plane and make for the nearest safe area for a landing. All the seat back phones are diverted to a ground based negotiation team who are the only contact the hijackers have, no way of getting thru to the cockpit crew anymore..... I like a lot of the ideas here, armed sky marshals etc, but don't think the airlines will spend the $$ :( ..... Its an idea based on a system I have to use at work ...
Laika
-
I believe I'll speak to my Union reps as probably 35,000+ other pilots are doing now. Then I'll let the Union do the negotiating with the government.
As for the rest of it, time to go fly and time to exit this thread as well.
I'm confident that the other readers can make their own accurate judgement as to which posters were rational or irrational, calm or <edit> emotional <end edit>, logical or illogical.
There's plenty of evidence.
[ 09-14-2001: Message edited by: Toad ]
-
Originally posted by Toad:
Need and responsibility? Check the lineage of that clear back to the early days of Ship Captains. There is only one "Master" of any vessel. Take a wild guess at who had the key to the arms locker.
Toad,
I served 8 years in the Navy, 6 and a half were sea duty on two submarines. I can assure you that the captain of the ship does not have the key to the guns. Usually there are two keys: one in a safe that only the weapons officer has access to and one on a lanyard around an enlisted man's neck.
My second sub, USS Dolphin, had no torpedo tubes since it was only a small research sub. So, we had no torpedomen on board. As the next closest division in the weapons department, sonar was responsible for the gun locker and I (a lowly E-6) wore the gun locker key :D The funny part was everyone knew I was a bit of a gun fanatic, but the captain found that to be a good quality for both maintenance and markmanship perspectives. Partially on topic for this post: I have a concealed carry permit and carry my 0.45 whenever it is legal. I am used to having it and feel a bit "naked" when I fly without it. If I can be trusted to walk around the general population fully armed (for the benefit of everyone's safety and security), why can't I be trusted to do the same on board an airplane? The vast majority of citizens with concealed carry permits would provide a free source of "sky marshals". My only fault with the concealed carry permit is that only a minimum of training and certification is required, so these would very much be amateurs who would make some costly mistakes. A risk I would be willing to take given the overall benefits (much the same risk any state takes by allowing concealed carry).
-
creamo... the doors need to be strengthened. And we do need armed sky marshaslls so that the terrorists are not the only armed people on board. I would have no problem with off duty police or concealed carry permit people having their firearms on them with approved ammo. Imagine if while those brave people on the penn flight were vooting and planning on how and who was gonna get stabbed first... A passenger said "well, how bout I just shoot em?". I can find no case of any concealed carry permit holder involved in a "cowboy" action maybe you can?
I don't think your plan will work creamo. Uh, What was that plan exactly?
If you are frightened that perhaps a pilot or navigator who is involved in a traininfg program, has a firearm... behind a terrorist resistant door... Yet, you are perfectly willing to board an aircraft in which the only people with weapons is guarenteed to be the bad guy.... You are naive or a woman...
Another place that is guarenteed to have everyone disarmed except the bad guys is... schoolyards. We all know how well that works out! Fortunately tho in that case... someone with a gun shows up and stops it... eventually... Usually with only a couple dozen casualties. With an airliner tho... once the wheels leave the ground... sorry bud... ur on ur own... and with no tools and no chance of help arriving.
Your fear of an inatimate objects is making u irrational.
Toad is right... you are wrong. you sound as stupid as the "sleeping gas guy".
lazs
-
Lasz, there's every indication that there are terrorists who set themselves up in this country and even become part of communities. If a conceiled weapons permits were all that was required to carry handguns on an airliner, it's a good bet that these guys would have found ways to get them.
I like the idea of having Sky Marshalls, and would be happy to pay the extra in my airline tickets. But pilots carrying guns? I'm sorry, but being a pilot in no way qualifies you to handle a firearm in a situation where you have to stay calm and be willing to use deadly force. Seal off the cockpit, but leave the weapons in the hands of professionals. If the pilots need a toejamter, then steal the one from First Class and make it accessible only to the pilots.
SOB
-
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.
-
Creamo,
You've taken heat in this thread and some was justified. You asked for a cop’s view about lethal force so here it is.
You mentioned "less than lethal" force measures. From street experience I have to tell you that against a DETERMINED attacker they are less than effective. Tasers do not stop someone who is on heavy doses of stimulants or psychotic. They are also childishly easy to defeat. A taser has to make CLOSE contact with the flesh of the attacker. A simple shield will stop them entirely. You have carry on luggage on board. A suit bag will do nicely here.
Pepper spray or mace has an area effect. In my experience it has as much chance to work on the person using it as the person being sprayed. Remember you are in a closed environment. Which way is the airflow going? Pilot crew WILL be hit with it as well. It WILL make it difficult to see where you are going and the instruments as well.
Hand to hand. This is ridiculous. A terrorist with a knife will likely kill or severely main at least one defender. Not all pilot crew are of a size to make the outcome of a fistfight decisive. It takes FAR more time to make a person proficient in hand to hand combat than in almost any weapon. Besides the training involved only the recipient of the training will be able to determine if they have the measure needed to actually close and give combat. The time they find out will be at the crisis point.
I agree with pilots having a weapon. I feel it should be the senior officers position (Captain if you will) to maintain it. By the time they make that option available I would expect the airline to provide several hours of training and a mandatory qualification in the weapon. It really shouldn't take too long, as we will not be talking about long range shooting.
The qualification should be MANDATORY. The ranges for qualification should also be about the same for Police, say about 25 yards for the long-range portion. The key item is the training as to WHEN to shoot. Obviously it is going to be a last ditch situation. The conditions will likely have to be when the cockpit door is being broached. The controls of the plane will have to be maintained by crew, period, no exceptions and no surrender any more.
There, you have my analysis of the situation you and Toad were arguing about.
Mav
PS there are NO perfect solutions to this situation, only compromises.
-
Just put a tazer gun below every seat and add the how-to instructions as part of the take-off instructions and the magazines.
-
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.
-
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? :rolleyes:
-
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 ;)
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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 ]
-
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 ]
-
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 (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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
We just spent $40,000,000,000 for emergency relief after the bombing. That's billion.. with a B. I seriously doubt that the government would not consider funding the upgrades.
AKDejaVu
-
heh, OK AKSagan..."Billions...and billions...and...." (That guy was cool)
Anyway, in fact yes, the Government will help (I hope), and the airlines INITIAL request to just stay in business is 24 Billion. That's just low interest loans, 5 cent/gal fuel break, and some tax relief etc... That's before they even touch airplanes. Help will come from the government, but when the first bandage is 24 Billion, just how much is too much, see?
I believe the government shoulders the responsibility of stopping the terrorists on the ground.
You don't devise elaborate bucket arrangement schemes in your house when your roof is leaking preparing for the next storm. You fix the roof.
I can't see why we would attempt to use that thinking on terrorists. Keep them off aircraft, problem solved.
[ 09-17-2001: Message edited by: Creamo ]
-
Wow creamo... you should try harder to come up with more reasons why it shouldn't work.. or couldn't work or whatever.
Or you could just admit you were wrong and get on with your life.
AKDejaVu <-getting ready to read more reasons
-
I was wrong, I admit it.
Explaining airline business to a flightsim crowd was a stretch, and I’m no expert. I was just trying to be the devil’s advocate.
I also thought observations within the industry might dispel some solutionsw that seemed far fetched to me, or not feasible.
When you mentioned 88 million was not a big deal, while not eluding that you knew already the airlines need 24 BILLION just to stay afloat, I though that was new information to you of sorts. I shared it. Apparently you knew already though, so no big deal.
My life goes on until the furloughs, layoffs, and collapse of my job and many airlines.
At that time, I will seek advise from the AH community that is so “right.”
It’s comforting actually. Thanks for the input.
In jest of course. :)
-
This just in----
Work rumours say Sky Marshals are being trained as we speak. Plus they are increasing our overnight heavy checks to make up for lost flights and work.
:)
edit- Whats your work site reporting AKDJV?
[ 09-18-2001: Message edited by: Creamo ]