Post #9,009
9/13/01 11:05:39 PM
|
A Modest Proposal
I think we have this security thing for aircraft all wrong. How about we have NO SECURITY on aircraft?
What I'm proposing is that all citizens are free (and encouraged) to carry firearms on the flight.
If 4-5 hijackers show up, there would be 100 people with handguns/rifles/shotguns ready and willing to answer their terror with some of their own.
Yeah, the plane decompresses as holes are filled in the skin and the aircraft collapses in on itself, but then, at least, it cannot be used as a weapon! Yeah, all the people on the plane die (they were going to anyway), but at least they don't manage to kill 5000 people in the process.
(I'm just venting frustration here, I'm not really serious.)
Glen Austin
|
Post #9,015
9/13/01 11:30:04 PM
|
But it's a start
I don't know about allowing full conceal carry on board.
But sure, allow any police officer, FBI agent, or military officer to carry a gun.
Chances are, in many flights there will be one or more.
G. Gordon Liddy told a story yesterday (or the day before) about how he had to deal wiith it. This was in the days before metal detectors and so forth, but FBI agents were required to declare their weapons to the flight captain.
The captain asked him what he was carrying. Liddy said a 357 Magnum. The captain gave him a first-class seat and ordered him to shoot anyone who looked like he was trying to get into the pilot cabin.
There are certainly other things that can be done. The door to the pilot cabin is ridiculously flimsy. I don't know what this bullshit about killing flight attendants to "lure" a pilot out of the cabin is about; hell, I have arteriol necrosis (essentially similar to arthritis in my hips) and *I* could kick open the damn cockpit door. I want to hear more about this supposed "lure" stuff (aka until I know more, bullshit) until I form an opinion.
If the door were 1" steel, and the pilots wouldn't open it on a terroristic threat, Tuesday wouldn't have happened.
That no man should scruple, or hesitate a moment to use arms in defense of so valuable a blessing [as freedom], on which all the good and evil of life depends, is clearly my opinion; yet arms ... should be the last resource. - George Washington
|
Post #9,017
9/13/01 11:37:45 PM
|
Somewhat more modest
A poster on another board, amid fulminations, has proposed something else.
Given that:
1) Many states have passed concealed-carry laws for firearms;
2) In general, "civilians" tend to be more responsible gun owners than police officers (why? ordinary people have guns because they like them; they practice with them a lot. For police officers, qualifying with a firearm is a once a year ritual (if that) and in between, practice time is taken out of either personal, off-duty time or time they should be on the street)
Therefore --
The airlines should allow anyone who's been issued a concealed-carry permit and taken a course in gun use aboard airplanes to board the plane with a concealed weapon, bypassing the checks to do so. Guns carried aboard planes should have Glaser ammo, which fragments on impact and is much less likely to damage the aircraft structure [a danger which is overblown, IMO]
Police officers [with ID] and military personne [with ID and qualification papers; qualification in smallarms only, please] should have the same privilege.
The original poster suggested that they should get a free ticket. Probably not; with the additional bark added to the security, the ability to bypass the magnetometer would be enough initiative to get me off my butt to get my concealed carry license. (They might offer an upgrade to first class, so as to be near the cockpit)
That would work. It means the only gun carriers on planes would have been checked to a fare-the-well, and, more important, would have some training. It also means any hijacker would generally get a warm reception; as I said, an upgrade to first class and permission to avoid the search would get my attention.
Closing the barn door after the horse is gone, I know.
Regards,
Ric
|
Post #9,031
9/14/01 12:21:38 AM
|
Cheaper Than Air Marshals?
Kay Bailey Hutchison is proposing reinstating the Air Marshal program from the 1970's.
I see the current efforts by the FAA as a band aid on an artery.
I like the idea of Air Marshals, but one guy isn't going to successfully defend a plane against 4-5 hijackers. I like the idea of allowing "responsible gun owners", soldiers/officers, law enforcement to be allowed to carry guns on airplanes provided they don't have a criminal record, they don't drink inflight, and that the pilot is aware of exactly who has guns. And yes, maybe they even get 1st class.
The other thing I keep saying is that carry-on luggage has to go away. I know it's unpopular to think about that, but unless every bag is hand checked by security prior to entering the gate area, ( something we cannot afford to do in the cost of time with medium sized/large bags ), then we cannot be sure that our poor scanning procedures we use today will prevent an attack.
Those are the procedures I think will ultimately be implemented. Carry on bags will be limited to purses (smaller than 9x12x4 inches) or something the size of a 2" binder. Laptops/electronics must be checked. (Hence creating a market for ruggedized laptops.) All of the items in this purse are hand checked.
The FAA keeps tightening "airport" security by removing 1 hour parking, preventing family members from entering the gate area, etc., but these are ineffective. Forcing all passengers to check practically all of their luggage is the answer. That way, the amount of the stuff in the cabin of the plane is limited to items that have been hand verified by security personnel.
And we need to make a security personnel job a "professional" position, with pay and benefits like a police officer, not a fast food server.
Security is serious business, and we need to treat it that way.
Glen Austin
|
Post #9,018
9/13/01 11:37:47 PM
|
Fly Naked
Alot fewer places to hide weapons, and somewhow a naked terrorist just doesn't sound as threatening.
--
Chris Altmann
|
Post #9,033
9/14/01 12:35:30 AM
|
Archie Bunker beat you to it.
As I recall, the Meathead was nonplussed.
Then there's the one where Gloria is getting hysterical about how many jillions of people get killed with handguns each year. His reply: "would you feel better little girl, if they was stabbed?"
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/index.html|http://www.angelfir...e/index.html]
|
Post #9,100
9/14/01 12:29:39 PM
|
Not so impossible
Heard an interview last night on one of the networks with some security expert. Things that were proposed were:
1) Pilots should have small arms in in the cockpit so that they could fight off anyone attempting to force their way in the cockpit.
2) Cockpit doors need to be beefed up and maybe should have two doors like an airlock.
3) If terrorists start killing passengers in an attempt to lure out the pilots, the pilots' first action should be to get the plane to a low altitude - and land if possible - so that if shots are fired, the plane is not subject to catastrophic decompression. The passengers are expected to fight it out with the terrorists while the flight crew's primary responsibility is to ensure that the plane doesn't become a flying bomb.
4) Police officers, military personel, and other people already trained and entrusted to carry hand guns in public should also do so on all flights. Such persons would in effect become deputized sky marshalls.
5) There was a discussion about the destuctive potential of firing a gun on board a plane at high altitude. The interviewee explained that there are guns and ammo that will not penetrate the fusulage. Do not if it's true but I bet if it isn't, American ingenuity can find a way to make it so.
As an side note, I haven't seen anyone mention the implications of the WTC on our country's attitude towards gun control. I think we are going to see a significant shift towards the right. I saw a newspaper article citing anecdotal evidence that guns sales are up significantly this week.
Ray
|
Post #9,114
9/14/01 1:15:31 PM
|
I've heard counterpoints
1) Pilots should have small arms in in the cockpit so that they could fight off anyone attempting to force their way in the cockpit. That gives a would-be terrorist a known source of a gun aboard an aircraft. Training all commercial pilots in the use of firearms (practice, etc.) is almost a practical impossibility - for that matter, there are some people who you just would not want to hand a gun to, not necessarily because of being a security risk (hell, they're already in the cockpit, if they want to kill themselves they can already do it), but because they can't hit the broadside of a barn. 2) Cockpit doors need to be beefed up and maybe should have two doors like an airlock. Certainly in future aircraft designs this should be done - but I heard interviews with people who said the cockpit currently depends on the cabin air supply. You certainly couldn't put an airtight airlock in. But the door can certainly be beefed up quite a bit. The current designs, you wouldn't even have to give them more than an anemic kick - and I've been on flights where there's not even a door, just a curtain. 3) If terrorists start killing passengers in an attempt to lure out the pilots, Assuming this is in fact what happened, I don't think the "luring" tactic will ever work again, even without specific guidelines to that effect. 5) There was a discussion about the destuctive potential of firing a gun on board a plane at high altitude. On the other hand, what's more destructive, a dead terrorist and a puncture and decompression, or a flying bomb? Even wthout special ammunition, I'd think the risk could be worth it . Non-puncturing ammo would of course still be a good idea. That no man should scruple, or hesitate a moment to use arms in defense of so valuable a blessing [as freedom], on which all the good and evil of life depends, is clearly my opinion; yet arms ... should be the last resource. - George Washington
|
Post #9,144
9/14/01 2:48:25 PM
|
Re: I've heard counterpoints
1) Pilots should have small arms in in the cockpit so that they could fight off anyone attempting to force their way in the cockpit.
That gives a would-be terrorist a known source of a gun aboard an aircraft. Training all commercial pilots in the use of firearms (practice, etc.) is almost a practical impossibility - for that matter, there are some people who you just would not want to hand a gun to, not necessarily because of being a security risk (hell, they're already in the cockpit, if they want to kill themselves they can already do it), but because they can't hit the broadside of a barn.
They addressed this in the interview too. The terrorist could take the guns from the pilots but then you have the situation of a terrorist without a gun trying to take a gun from an armed pilot. The odds are in the pilot's favor. The pistols would be locked in the cockpit so that when a member of the flight crew is strolling down the aisle, they can't be disarmed by a surprise attack. Also, since most commercial pilots are former military, they should be trainable in small arms use. Furthermore, since the guns would be for the pilots' self-defence, good aim is not too crucial. They don't have to hit a terrorist at 50yds holding a stewardess as a body shield. They just have to stop a guy trying to breakdown a cockpit door at 2yds. Ray
|
Post #9,202
9/14/01 7:32:11 PM
|
What occurs to me --
The pilots have the ability to pop the oxy masks and depressurize the airplane.
Why not?
They have their own (independent) supplemental oxygen, so there's no air safety implications. Of course this depends on having a door that gives at least a few moments' time delay; or somebody else giving them a few moments.
It doesn't take long -- 2-3 minutes in my experience -- for anoxia to put just about anybody down. People sitting in the seats would have their masks; but anybody wandering about the aisles would be in deep trouble. They could, of course, grab a mask from somebody, whereupon they're tethered.
Not perfect -- the terrorists could carry supplemental oxygen of their own. Of course, the cylinder would be moderately prominent, even on the current security x-ray machines, and might cause Questions To Be Asked.
And of course there's a danger to emphysemics, heart patients, etc., but if the alternative is that everybody dies for sure, why not try it?
Regards,
Ric
|
Post #9,203
9/14/01 7:38:53 PM
|
Re: What occurs to me --
Better yet, you could flood the passenger area with sleeping gas. Passenger oxygen masks too. Gas mask would be hard to conceal. Keep them all knocked out until the FBI boards.
Ray
|
Post #9,204
9/14/01 7:44:23 PM
|
Problem with such methods...
...is that it also makes it easy for a terrorist to subdue the passengers if they happen to get at the controls in fairly short before the crew can react, thus depriving the passengers of putting up a resistance.
|
Post #9,250
9/15/01 1:13:54 AM
|
Words from a Pilot
The gun issue came up yesterday on KRLD, a local news/talk radio station in Dallas.
They interviewed a pilot, asking for suggestions about what to do about hijacking.
The pilot explained that it takes close to 20 seconds for him to get out of his seat and face the back door of the cockpit. There is a shoulder harness to remove, plus a seatbelt, possibly a headset, and then care to ensure that the controls are safely passed to autopilot or to the co-pilot (avoiding kicking the pedals, etc.). There is a fire axe and fire extinguisher in the cockpit, and (believe it or not), both have been used to subdue passengers trying to enter the cockpit.
The sleeping gas idea only works if the hijackers aren't aware that sleeping gas is on the airplane. Thus, with our blabbermouth press, the hijackers would certainly be aware of such a measure. Even if they didn't know, they would discover it on the first hijacking, and future hijackers would be aware enough of it. (Might be worth a try, even with hijackers knowing, since it would be really difficult to get your own masks and equipment through the security checkpoint.)
The cabin decompression idea puts passengers at risk, but the risk might be worth ensuring that you get the plane down safely.
I think new stronger doors should be a requirement at the next maintenance heavy check as well as a hijack button for the flight attendants to signal the pilots not to enter the cabin.
And I'm still in favor of reinstituting Sky Marshals, as well as allowing soldiers and law enforcement officers to carry their weapons on board provided they don't drink inflight. I would require the soldier/law enforcement officer to "preregister" with the airline, with the PD providing the documentation, or the military, prior to the soldier/law officer arriving at the airport. (In other words, the security needs to be thorough enough to ensure that a hijacker does not board the plane "pretending" to be a soldier or law officer.)
Glen Austin
|
