plsmith
|
posted on September 21, 2001 05:03:04 PM new
After speaking to several relatives and friends of mine in the wake of the U.S. attacks made via commercial jets, every one of them thinks arming the pilots/co-pilots of those aircraft (with guns) would be a wise (and cost-effective) measure against future hijacking attempts. Some would like to like to see Fort Knox doors installed, separating the cockpit from the passenger areas of the plane. And most are NOT happy with the idea that Federal Marshals planted on certain flights will be plainclothed individuals. They want them in full SWAT-Team regalia -- a presence EVERYONE can take into account. After reading numerous articles about lapses in the new FAA guidelines for airport security, I have to say that arming the primary flight crew seems reasonable to me...
|
uaru
|
posted on September 21, 2001 05:29:12 PM new
And most are NOT happy with the idea that Federal Marshals planted on certain flights will be plainclothed individuals. They want them in full SWAT-Team regalia -- a presence EVERYONE can take into account.
How about if the marshals are in plain clothes with a sign around their neck saying, "I'm the one with the gun." That way passengers are given a sense of security and the terrorists have their #1 target identified for them.
Pilots having guns is okay I suppose, more important is cockpit doors that can't be broken into easily. Now that pilots know not to go into the main cabin in the event of an attack on passengers or attendants they can use other methods to break up a take over. One pilot said that he could make it really brutal for anyone not buckled in their seats in the event of an attack. Another option is depressurizing the main cabin to halt a takeover attempt. These are things they know to consider now that they didn't know 10 days ago.
|
godzillatemple
|
posted on September 21, 2001 05:35:24 PM new
Arming the pilots could be a hit or miss proposition [pardon the pun]. I'd hate to think an unarmed hijacker could tussle with the pilot and actually OBTAIN a weapon...
No, as inconvenient as it may be for the pilots, I think the only real solution is to completely seal off the cockpit from the rest of the plane and give it a separate entrance. That way, the only way the cockpit could be entered is when the plane is on the ground. Of course, there would have to be some sort of sanitary facility for the pilots, and maybe a slot where food could be passed through to them. And heaven help us if the pilots were to become disabled somehow [food poisoning, anyone?] and nobody was able to get in to fly the plane....
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
|
sadie999
|
posted on September 21, 2001 05:37:16 PM new
Yes.
|
uaru
|
posted on September 21, 2001 05:40:52 PM new
I think the only real solution is to completely seal off the cockpit from the rest of the plane and give it a separate entrance.
Double doors is the ideal situation, that should be able to be retro fitted to most large airliners. The pilot slides one door shut before opening the other.
|
GreetingsfromUK
|
posted on September 21, 2001 05:41:37 PM new
All ElAl flights have incognito guards. The check in for ElAl flights in UK takes 3 hours.
|
hepburn
|
posted on September 21, 2001 06:09:32 PM new
Yes on the guns, yes on the double doors, yes on plain clothes marshalls. And to go even one further, have all stewardesses sign a mandatory policy form similar to what the employees sign when they work for prisons...that they will not hold the airlines liable IF they are taken hostage and may be used to gain access to the cockpit. In short, if someone hold a stewardess or crew member and says they will kill him/her if not allowed in the cockpit....oh well. I know that sounds harsh, but its better than giving access to the controls.
|
Microbes
|
posted on September 21, 2001 06:41:35 PM new
I think one reason they want the armed marshalls to be "plain clothes" is that the don't plan on putting them on all fights. But I agree, if the are uniformed, they might as well paint a bullseye on their forehead.
|
gravid
|
posted on September 21, 2001 06:57:10 PM new
I think it is asking a lot to have the pilot fly the plane AND wear a pistol and be trained how to use it. (You did plan on training them didn't you?) If there have to be firearms in the cockpit let the co-pilot or flight engineer be responsible for it and forget the pistol. Give them a sawed off shot gun to bar anyone coming through the door. No skill - no finese - automatic win even if you are half dead and can't aim and still manage to pull the trigger. I load my shells with short lengths of brazing rod cut so the end are a sharp chisel shape. They tumble sideways quickly but there are always a number that will hit end on - and they go through the first 3 grades of body armor like tissue paper. The ones that hit sideways EACH make a 5/8 inch wide wound that wanders around as it penatrates. Just add hamburger helper and slide them in an oven bag for their final journey.
|
hjw
|
posted on September 21, 2001 07:06:09 PM new
One armed guard could be overtaken by a group of well trained terrorists. Seems to me that it would be better to design a more secure cabin.
Years ago, when my child was four, she made a dash for the cabin and almost made it.
Helen
|
kcpick4u
|
posted on September 21, 2001 07:16:17 PM new
They could use gas in the passenger compartment to put every one a sleep, including the terrorist in the event of a emergency. In addition to making the cockpit
secure from intrusion from the passenger compartment.
|
gravid
|
posted on September 21, 2001 07:22:48 PM new
The airlines will never accept gas in the cabin. If they ever do release it the effect on young /old / people with asthma and heart conditions will open them up to legal action. And there is always the chance it would be set off by accident. To release the gas I would think the flight crew would have to have police powers.
|
Microbes
|
posted on September 21, 2001 07:28:43 PM new
To release the gas I would think the flight crew would have to have police powers.
Don't they already? I'm not sure, but isn't a pilot of an airliner like a captain of a ship?
|
kcpick4u
|
posted on September 21, 2001 07:28:50 PM new
Nitrous oxide!
|
julie321
|
posted on September 22, 2001 12:44:04 AM new
I agree with Barry. Guns in the pilots hands is just asking for trouble, even if the intent is good.
The doors should be doubled (as mentioned by another poster) and solid. I'd also like to see camera's placed in the cabin with viewing screens in the cockpit and where the cabin crew could see it. This would also provide evidence against the increases cases of air rage as well as give pilots a view as to what is going on in the cabin without putting themselves and the plane full of passangers in possible danger by going into the cabin to investigate.
|
gaffan
|
posted on September 22, 2001 01:22:50 AM new
My understanding is that the sealed cockpit option won't work for present airframe designs. In case of a sudden pressure change in either the cockpit or the passenger compartment, there has to be a means to equalize it quickly (otherwise the distribution of stresses on the higher-pressured area can be such that it'll explode, yielding a bigger problem than there was in the first place.) Most current aircraft achieve this by having panels in the cockpit door which will blow out in such instances. These can certainly be redesigned so they can't be punched out with a fist, but Fort Knox can't be done.
-gaffan-
[email protected]
|
plsmith
|
posted on September 22, 2001 02:28:20 AM new
What if it wasn't a solid Fort Knox door, though? I'm thinking something similar to those stamped-steel security doors one uses in place of a screen door in the better neighborhoods... just thicker steel (or titanium, or whatever), with a zillion little air holes in it. Such could even be configured to enable one to see out but not in. Wouldn't such a door eliminate the unequal pressurization scenario?
Actually, I'd like to arm the flight attendants with Tazers, at least. Would subdue that air rage crap...
|
monkeysuit
|
posted on September 22, 2001 03:47:23 AM new
Maybe a ban on all carry-ons except for those needed by people traveling with infants or those who need medical equipment? Checking each and every diaper bag and piece of medical equipment would take less time than the carry-on checks do now, and the checks could be more thorough.
The real problem comes when the airlines have to do a 'pat down' on everyone who boards the plane. It would be a bit intrusive, but if you don't want to be subject to one, drive or take a bus. The same applies to those who want their cell phones or laptops. If you can't be without them for 6 hours, don't fly.
|
krs
|
posted on September 22, 2001 03:50:34 AM new
Of course arm the crews, but with weapons that won't penetrate the fuselage, and there are all sorts of filtered vent systems which could be used in a cockpit door to equalize pressures while still preventing the entry of noxious gasses to the cockpit.
And/Or, put every passenger in chains--shackles that keep them in their seats as were used in galleys by Rome in "Ben Hur" so that slave rowers could not escape during battles unless released by crew. There's no need to unshackle airline passengers in emergency situations because if the plane crashes they're all gonna' die anyway.
|
julie321
|
posted on September 22, 2001 04:18:46 AM new
If flight (cockpit and cabin) crews are given any kind of weapons they'll also need to be trained to not only use the weapons but to safeguard themselves and their colleagues against someone who wants to get that weapon away from them. I would think a safer idea would be to simply train flight crews in better (or any) self defense methods. They don't need weapons to disarm and disable a knife (or gun) weilding opponent.
|
krs
|
posted on September 22, 2001 04:31:44 AM new
In the confines of an airplane the paunchy 60 year old pilots will disarm unknown numbers of highly trained young and ruthless killers after how many years of martial arts training? Guns.
|
julie321
|
posted on September 22, 2001 04:49:47 AM new
Let's just say I disagree, but will add this last message to my case 
For one, it doesn't take "years" of training to enable a person to perform some very effective maneuvers. More than anything it's simply confidence.
That same pilot will get that gun wrestled out of his hand just as easily. He's also likely to shoot completely innocent people in the process of trying to shoot the real enemy. Also, consider the effects a stray bullet can have if it *only* penetrates through the cabin walls but severs electronic wiring. The list is endless, imho it all leads to an even scarier situation. Furthermore, with solid, lockable doors perhaps pilots should be even more restricted in their movement into the cabin.
If the pilot could monitor the cabin without being in it, he and the plane would be better off.
|
krs
|
posted on September 22, 2001 04:57:24 AM new
Those 'very effective' manuevers such as they could be given in short order like in a self defense class for people who think to develop self confidence would only be laughed off by anyone good; it takes little training to use a handgun and the majority of pilots are ex-air force pilots and have had that training; there are several varieties of projectiles and loadings which are disabling yet would not penetrate cabin walls; and now you're history.
|
julie321
|
posted on September 22, 2001 05:06:36 AM new
I don't mean self defense given at the Y..
history??
|
gravid
|
posted on September 22, 2001 09:46:49 AM new
I don't know if this sounds crazy to you but I have often thought that it would be great to divide an airliner body into 4 or 5 sections that would uncouple with explosive bolts and have a ballistically deployed 'chute on each to take it to the ground. There are so many crashes where the pilot has a long struggle trying to control the plane and land it in one piece. That would give him another option if he could get it down to 15,000 foot or so and over land. If it was designed right you could use the sections to build planes of slightly different configuration. It would probably even make rebuilding a plane easier than a one piece body.
|
gaffan
|
posted on September 22, 2001 10:21:49 AM new
Similarly, I've always wondered -- since back in the days when putting a bomb in a piece of check-in baggage was the way terrorists used airplanes -- why the baggage compartment wasn't designed as essentially a separate structure, with easily blown out sides/bottom. Properly designed, the aircraft could maintain sufficient aerodynamic integrity to stay in the air even in the event the baggage compartment went kaboom. I realize this would entail some blast deflection plating of some sort, but it might still be effective.
Krs already covered everything I was going to add to revise and extend my earlier comments, with one exception. I think people in coach should be given actual oars to row.
-gaffan-
[email protected]
|
plsmith
|
posted on September 22, 2001 10:33:38 AM new
LOL! Sounds like a Rube Goldberg invention, gravid. Better make sure you're not infringing on anyone's patents before you proceed with it... 
El Al hasn't had a plane hijacked since they introduced armed personnel on every flight. They check EVERY bag, too, and ask questions of every passenger prior to boarding -- questions designed to glean far more information than our "Did you pack your bag yourself? Has your bag been left unattended?" bs.
Since we're already being told that getting on a flight in the U.S. now can take upwards of three hours, I think we ought to use that time as wisely as El Al does. AND arm-to-the-teeth each flight. Cruise ship captains have access to weapons; if ammunition that does not endanger the aircraft itself is available, why not use it?
krs, thank you. I thoroughly enjoyed the momentary image of myself and a herd of sweaty passengers rowing our way through the sky to safety...
Edited to add: heh, we seem to have been on the same page, gaffan.
[ edited by plsmith on Sep 22, 2001 10:35 AM ]
|
shoshanah
|
posted on September 22, 2001 10:47:41 AM new
Yes on the security doors.
Yes on the plain-clothes Air Marshalls.
No on the armed pilots. Hopefully, the Marshalls would have done their job, so there should be no need for weapons inside the cabin.
Only my view.
Oh! and slip a Mickey (spelling??) in all the passenger drinks and food on the planes , so everyone has a peaceful flight and wakes up nice and refreshed, and in the country they had planned to land in
[ edited by shoshanah on Sep 22, 2001 10:56 AM ]
|
julie321
|
posted on September 22, 2001 11:21:33 AM new
I believe that El Al has armed guards, not armed flight crew. But, I could be wrong. I couldn't find documentation that specified either way. However, I know that El-Al has armed guards stationed around it's check-ins at this airport (Amsterdam, Holland). They are dressed in full battle dress with automatic weapons in hand and ready to use.
It's no wonder no one wants to mess with them, they are clear about their intentions.
As to the check-in practices. I live in Europe and this is the norm. Each and every passenger for every airlines is checked and it doesn't take that long really. We usually arrive 1-2 hours before take off and that allows for check-in where we're asked about the baggage "did you pack it yourself, has it been out of sight at any time..etc.."
You *must* present a valid passport to check-in. It's not that bad really. The worst check-in I've ever had was in Paris 1 year after the TWA crash where security was EXTREME and every piece of baggage was searched and we (as a couple) were separated during our check-in and "interrogation".
Many airports in europe also have a policy that the plane doesn't take off unless each passenger that checked bags is on the plane. Planes can be delayed because bags are unloaded when their passengers don't make it to the gate
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on September 22, 2001 11:41:01 AM new
I don't understand why a gas wouldn't work. So what if some of the passengers had asthma or whatever? It's better than dying. If it was something that was used as a last resort to temporarily knock everyone out for a few minutes until the bad guys could be handcuffed, I'd sure go for it.
|
