What having a sky marshal really means

[C J Campbell]

All those people who worry about explosive decompression, innocent
bystanders getting shot, etc., are missing the point.

If a sky marshal (or pilot, for that matter) really has to get into a fight
with a terrorist, odds are you are going to lose the airplane. Either the
terrorist will set off a bomb or the aircraft will be so damaged during the
fight that it will crash.

This is still better odds of survival for the passengers and crew than
simply shooting down the hijacked aircraft, which the military will scramble
to do the moment that somebody tries to take over the airplane. The sky
marshal has only a very limited time to regain control. Otherwise the jet
will be shot down, no questions asked. So whatever the marshal can do, at
whatever cost, is better than the alternative.

Either alternative is better than letting a terrorist take control of an
aircraft and fly it into a crowd of people or some valuable object.

I would think that a pilot on a threatened aircraft would gradually reduce
the cabin pressure enough to cause the passengers to pass out. This could be
done in less time than it would probably take to break through the cockpit
door. The bad guys probably would not even notice and might even experience
a moment of euphoria. Once the passenger cabin is properly subdued the
pilots could make their way back and give oxygen to the sky marshals, disarm
the terrorists, and guarantee that control would be maintained after
everybody wakes up while the airplane is descending to land.

This last alternative would still be very dangerous. The terrorists might
still set off a bomb, either before they pass out or after they wake up. The
oxygen masks dropping in the cabin would might tip them off to what was
happening, although the masks sometimes deploy during a hijacking anyway.

--
Christopher J. Campbell
World Famous Flight Instructor
Port Orchard, WA


If you go around beating the Bush, don't complain if you rile the animals.

[Viperdoc]

I hope your suggestion wasn't serious- remember when terrorists took over a
theater in Russia and the special forces sprayed in a "non-lethal" disabling
agent? Around half of the hostages also died from the effects as well.

What makes you think a significant number of the elderly or less healthy
passengers would also die from hypoxia? How many would suffer permanent
brain damage, or strokes or heart attacks?

I think I would rather take my chances having a trained air marshal on board
even if they had to start shooting Glaser safety slugs around the cabin. If
a terrorist does not control the flight deck they do not control the
airplane, and pilots are trained to keep the door closed and locked under
any and all circumstances.

[Bob Gardner]

We frequently read/hear/see news reports of fights with unruly
passengers...why would a fight in the passenger cabin cause the loss of the
airplane? Explosives-wearing folks don't count...your scenario just suggests
fighting.

Bob Gardner

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> All those people who worry about explosive decompression, innocent
> bystanders getting shot, etc., are missing the point.
>
> If a sky marshal (or pilot, for that matter) really has to get into a
fight
> with a terrorist, odds are you are going to lose the airplane. Either the
> terrorist will set off a bomb or the aircraft will be so damaged during
the
> fight that it will crash.
>
> This is still better odds of survival for the passengers and crew than
> simply shooting down the hijacked aircraft, which the military will
scramble
> to do the moment that somebody tries to take over the airplane. The sky
> marshal has only a very limited time to regain control. Otherwise the jet
> will be shot down, no questions asked. So whatever the marshal can do, at
> whatever cost, is better than the alternative.
>
> Either alternative is better than letting a terrorist take control of an
> aircraft and fly it into a crowd of people or some valuable object.
>
> I would think that a pilot on a threatened aircraft would gradually reduce
> the cabin pressure enough to cause the passengers to pass out. This could
be
> done in less time than it would probably take to break through the cockpit
> door. The bad guys probably would not even notice and might even
experience
> a moment of euphoria. Once the passenger cabin is properly subdued the
> pilots could make their way back and give oxygen to the sky marshals,
disarm
> the terrorists, and guarantee that control would be maintained after
> everybody wakes up while the airplane is descending to land.
>
> This last alternative would still be very dangerous. The terrorists might
> still set off a bomb, either before they pass out or after they wake up.
The
> oxygen masks dropping in the cabin would might tip them off to what was
> happening, although the masks sometimes deploy during a hijacking anyway.
>
> --
> Christopher J. Campbell
> World Famous Flight Instructor
> Port Orchard, WA
>
>
> If you go around beating the Bush, don't complain if you rile the animals.
>
>
>

[Richard Hertz]

From what I understand, many of those people dies due to the lack of
information about what substance was introduced to their systems. I think
that the agency involved did not want to release that information to the
medical staff, and thus lives were lost hours after the hostages were
removed.

I do agree though that I would probably prefer an armed good guy (even the
pilots) shooting the bad guys than using means that were not meant to be
used as incapacitators.


"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
> I hope your suggestion wasn't serious- remember when terrorists took over
a
> theater in Russia and the special forces sprayed in a "non-lethal"
disabling
> agent? Around half of the hostages also died from the effects as well.
>
> What makes you think a significant number of the elderly or less healthy
> passengers would also die from hypoxia? How many would suffer permanent
> brain damage, or strokes or heart attacks?
>
> I think I would rather take my chances having a trained air marshal on
board
> even if they had to start shooting Glaser safety slugs around the cabin.
If
> a terrorist does not control the flight deck they do not control the
> airplane, and pilots are trained to keep the door closed and locked under
> any and all circumstances.
>
>

[Cub Driver]

>If a sky marshal (or pilot, for that matter) really has to get into a fight
>with a terrorist, odds are you are going to lose the airplane. Either the
>terrorist will set off a bomb or the aircraft will be so damaged during the
>fight that it will crash.

I don't agree. Who said the terrorist had a bomb, and how did he get
it on the airplane? And haven't we just wasted a lot of cyber-ink
proving that the chances of the odd angry shot downing the airplane
are extremely remote?

What I do agree with is this: the next terrorist incident will be
different than the four hijackings on 9/11. We have spent many
millions ensuring there won't be a repetition of 9/11, when it was
extremely unlikely that Osmaa ever expected there would be a
repetition. (More likely, he expected us to spend many millions of
dollars.)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>We frequently read/hear/see news reports of fights with unruly
>passengers...why would a fight in the passenger cabin cause the loss of the
>airplane? Explosives-wearing folks don't count...your scenario just suggests
>fighting.

This raises another question. There's a well-known phenom in law
enforcement having to do with alternative punishments, such as house
arrest by wearing an electronic bracelet instead of being sent to
jail. Instead of lessening the jail population, such alternatives are
likely to only increase the number of people sanctioned.

Won't the same thing happen with marshals, and possibly with armed
pilots? With an armed officer on board, won't guns come into use more
frequently? Won't aggressive passengers (like the one who recently got
up and helped himself to a bottle of wine from the galley) trigger
more armed confrontations, with increased likelihood of pistols going
off and injuring bystanders and making non-decompressive holes in the
aircraft?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Dave]

> But if there's ever another hijacking, it will end in one of two ways.
> If there are FAMs on board, they will subdue the hijackers with deadly
> force if necessary. If there are no FAMs on board, the passengers
> will subdue them with deadly force whether it's necessary or not.

There is a third way for the incident to end - the hijacker succeeds! There
is no guarantee that a FAM would do the business.

Some of them would be too drunk on the free booze in Business class (They
wont be travelling economy) and not take the job seriously like the drunk
TSA chief at Dulles.

Good way to build confidence in the security arrangements.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
> I hope your suggestion wasn't serious- remember when terrorists took over
a
> theater in Russia and the special forces sprayed in a "non-lethal"
disabling
> agent? Around half of the hostages also died from the effects as well.
>
> What makes you think a significant number of the elderly or less healthy
> passengers would also die from hypoxia? How many would suffer permanent
> brain damage, or strokes or heart attacks?
>
> I think I would rather take my chances having a trained air marshal on
board
> even if they had to start shooting Glaser safety slugs around the cabin.
If
> a terrorist does not control the flight deck they do not control the
> airplane, and pilots are trained to keep the door closed and locked under
> any and all circumstances.
>
Right!!

Even if an Air Marshall takes a couple innocents, that is the risk that the
situation dictates. It's a trade-off; losing a few innocents versus losing
the entire plane and possibly a massacre on the ground as well. Combat
commanders have to make such decision all the time, and they don't always
work out like in the movies (the majority of citizens basis for
understanding how things work).

Regardless of the ammunition a Marshal uses, it is highly unlikely to cause
a catastrophic failure of the aircraft. In any case, you must keep the bad
guys from turning the aircraft into a weapon AT ALL COSTS.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> >What makes you think a significant number of the elderly or less healthy
> >passengers would also die from hypoxia? How many would suffer permanent
> >brain damage, or strokes or heart attacks?
>
> As with the sky marshal's bullets, there's nothing wrong with this
> scenario. Losing a half-dozen passengers beat the hell out of losing
> 200.

....or 3,000. Or even more!

Better to lose the entire 200 on board than 3,000 or 30,000...

Sorry to sound so crass, but that's the reality. Those are the decisions
that have to be made all the time, and that are now forced on us by our
evasions over the past 50 years.

http://www.prophetofdoom.net

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >We frequently read/hear/see news reports of fights with unruly
> >passengers...why would a fight in the passenger cabin cause the loss of
the
> >airplane? Explosives-wearing folks don't count...your scenario just
suggests
> >fighting.
>
> This raises another question. There's a well-known phenom in law
> enforcement having to do with alternative punishments, such as house
> arrest by wearing an electronic bracelet instead of being sent to
> jail. Instead of lessening the jail population, such alternatives are
> likely to only increase the number of people sanctioned.

So...?

> Won't the same thing happen with marshals, and possibly with armed
> pilots? With an armed officer on board, won't guns come into use more
> frequently? Won't aggressive passengers (like the one who recently got
> up and helped himself to a bottle of wine from the galley) trigger
> more armed confrontations, with increased likelihood of pistols going
> off and injuring bystanders and making non-decompressive holes in the
> aircraft?

???? How do you arrive at THAT conclusion (or question)? Your first
paragraph leads to your second paragraph...how?

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >If a sky marshal (or pilot, for that matter) really has to get into a
fight
> >with a terrorist, odds are you are going to lose the airplane. Either the
> >terrorist will set off a bomb or the aircraft will be so damaged during
the
> >fight that it will crash.
>
> I don't agree. Who said the terrorist had a bomb, and how did he get
> it on the airplane? And haven't we just wasted a lot of cyber-ink
> proving that the chances of the odd angry shot downing the airplane
> are extremely remote?

He's addresing "worst case scenario"...at which time HOW he got in aboard
doesn't matter. (Inside job, magic...)

>
> What I do agree with is this: the next terrorist incident will be
> different than the four hijackings on 9/11. We have spent many
> millions ensuring there won't be a repetition of 9/11, when it was
> extremely unlikely that Osmaa ever expected there would be a
> repetition. (More likely, he expected us to spend many millions of
> dollars.)


In security work, the best you can hope for is to stop the easiest and more
direct attacks. This point is something the media consistently misses
(whether through sheer ignorance or willful deliberation is not clear).

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
> > But if there's ever another hijacking, it will end in one of two ways.
> > If there are FAMs on board, they will subdue the hijackers with deadly
> > force if necessary. If there are no FAMs on board, the passengers
> > will subdue them with deadly force whether it's necessary or not.
>
> There is a third way for the incident to end - the hijacker succeeds!
There
> is no guarantee that a FAM would do the business.

Dave, I've got news for you: "There are NO guarantee's in life". This is
something that most mature people already realize.


> Some of them would be too drunk on the free booze in Business class (They
> wont be travelling economy) and not take the job seriously like the drunk
> TSA chief at Dulles.

And you know this how?

> Good way to build confidence in the security arrangements.

TROLL!!

<PLONK>

[Dave]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dave" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > But if there's ever another hijacking, it will end in one of two ways.
> > > If there are FAMs on board, they will subdue the hijackers with deadly
> > > force if necessary. If there are no FAMs on board, the passengers
> > > will subdue them with deadly force whether it's necessary or not.
> >
> > There is a third way for the incident to end - the hijacker succeeds!
> There
> > is no guarantee that a FAM would do the business.
>
> Dave, I've got news for you: "There are NO guarantee's in life". This is
> something that most mature people already realize.
>
>
> > Some of them would be too drunk on the free booze in Business class
(They
> > wont be travelling economy) and not take the job seriously like the
drunk
> > TSA chief at Dulles.
>
> And you know this how?
>
If this is how the guys at the top behave what can one expect of the morons
further down?

[Dave S]

Half of the hostages died in part because 1) inadequate numbers of
medical personnel were immediately onhand due to poor planning 2) those
that WERE there werent told what was going on or what was used 3)
non-lethal is a misnomer (ANYTHING can be toxic in the wrong amounts,
including water and oxygen, let alone inhaled sedatives/anesthetics)

The decompression scenario may work, but you would have to disarm the
oxygen masks or they would deploy with depressurization. And again,
different people tolerate events differently. An otherwise healthy
person may survive without supplemental oxygen, but a person who is
marginal may not. If the masks deploy, then whats to prevent said bad
guys from commandeering masks to stay with the fight?

Dave

Viperdoc wrote:

> I hope your suggestion wasn't serious- remember when terrorists took over a
> theater in Russia and the special forces sprayed in a "non-lethal" disabling
> agent? Around half of the hostages also died from the effects as well.
>
> What makes you think a significant number of the elderly or less healthy
> passengers would also die from hypoxia? How many would suffer permanent
> brain damage, or strokes or heart attacks?
>
> I think I would rather take my chances having a trained air marshal on board
> even if they had to start shooting Glaser safety slugs around the cabin. If
> a terrorist does not control the flight deck they do not control the
> airplane, and pilots are trained to keep the door closed and locked under
> any and all circumstances.
>
>

[Robert Henry]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Cub Driver" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > What I do agree with is this: the next terrorist incident will be
> > different than the four hijackings on 9/11. We have spent many
> > millions ensuring there won't be a repetition of 9/11, when it was
> > extremely unlikely that Osmaa ever expected there would be a
> > repetition. (More likely, he expected us to spend many millions of
> > dollars.)
>
>
> In security work, the best you can hope for is to stop the easiest and
more
> direct attacks. This point is something the media consistently misses
> (whether through sheer ignorance or willful deliberation is not clear).
>
>

The Star Trek approach to prevent commandeering of aircraft is a far more
honest approach than air marshals. "This aircraft will self-destruct in 2
minutes."

[C J Campbell]

"Dave S" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
|
| The decompression scenario may work, but you would have to disarm the
| oxygen masks or they would deploy with depressurization. And again,
| different people tolerate events differently. An otherwise healthy
| person may survive without supplemental oxygen, but a person who is
| marginal may not. If the masks deploy, then whats to prevent said bad
| guys from commandeering masks to stay with the fight?
|

Well, the bad guys would then be on a very short leash.

[C J Campbell]

"Richard Riley" > wrote in message
...
|
| No, actually he expected that we would collapse into chaos and civil
| war. He saw all the press about how everyone was mad at Bush because
| he stole the election, and Bush was an idiot, and for 20 years the US
| hadn't done anything when attacked so we were a weak country ready to
| be pushed over the edge.

It appears from the tapes showing him laughing and watching videos of the
9/11 attacks that he actually thought there were mass conversions to Islam.

[Cecil E. Chapman]

Just my opinion, of course, but I think a lot of people don't really
understand how 9-1-1 really changed the playing field, so to speak.

It used to be that if you played nice with a hijacker, he/she would demand
to be flown to some place and that would be that. NOW after 9-1-1,,,
passengers and crew are assuming the worst and won't be threatened by a few
incompetents with box cutters that never were taught to bathe. The people
on those planes in 9-1-1 were assuming the old scenario,,,, play nice and
they'll ask to be flown to Cuba (or whatever) and most of us will be
okay...... NOW we know better,,,, short of (God forbid) one of those
low-lifes using a bomb on an aircraft or a gun,,, the passengers and crew
will take 'em out. 9-1-1,,, at least with a jumbo jet will remain the
singularly unique story from the past. Of course this is not to say that
they won't use trucks, boats, walk into shopping centers with explosives
strapped to their person,, one of those scenarios is sure to happen, next,
unfortunately - but what happened in 9-1-1 won't happen again (i.e. in that
same manner).

Just an aside,,, but if I hear one more reporter writing about how 'clever'
those 9-1-1 terrorists were, I think I'll just toss up my Twinkies. They
were common, slightly less-stupid-than-most thugs ,, who used fear to
control numbers greater than themselves, no different than the nonsense that
takes place on our city buses now and then, when two or three teenagers can
terrorize an entire busload of people.
--
--
=-----
Good Flights!

Cecil
PP-ASEL

Check out my personal flying adventures complete with pictures and text at:
www.bayareapilot.com

"I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery -

"We who fly, do so for the love of flying. We are alive in the air with
this miracle that lies in our hands and beneath our feet"
- Cecil Day Lewis -

[R. Hubbell]

On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 14:36:17 -0800 "C J Campbell" > wrote:

> All those people who worry about explosive decompression, innocent
> bystanders getting shot, etc., are missing the point.


Do the sky marshals guard every emergency exit? What would happen if a
terrorist opened and emergency hatch at 36,000 ft? Can they be opened at all
when the plane is at altitude?

The new backscatter xray machines can see pretty much see everything. So
I'd have to suspend disbelief to think your scenario could play out.

Are you saying that you think a gun and/or bomb could be gotten on board
somehow? You scenario seems to rest on that premise.



R. Hubbell



>
> If a sky marshal (or pilot, for that matter) really has to get into a fight
> with a terrorist, odds are you are going to lose the airplane. Either the
> terrorist will set off a bomb or the aircraft will be so damaged during the
> fight that it will crash.
>
> This is still better odds of survival for the passengers and crew than
> simply shooting down the hijacked aircraft, which the military will scramble
> to do the moment that somebody tries to take over the airplane. The sky
> marshal has only a very limited time to regain control. Otherwise the jet
> will be shot down, no questions asked. So whatever the marshal can do, at
> whatever cost, is better than the alternative.
>
> Either alternative is better than letting a terrorist take control of an
> aircraft and fly it into a crowd of people or some valuable object.
>
> I would think that a pilot on a threatened aircraft would gradually reduce
> the cabin pressure enough to cause the passengers to pass out. This could be
> done in less time than it would probably take to break through the cockpit
> door. The bad guys probably would not even notice and might even experience
> a moment of euphoria. Once the passenger cabin is properly subdued the
> pilots could make their way back and give oxygen to the sky marshals, disarm
> the terrorists, and guarantee that control would be maintained after
> everybody wakes up while the airplane is descending to land.
>
> This last alternative would still be very dangerous. The terrorists might
> still set off a bomb, either before they pass out or after they wake up. The
> oxygen masks dropping in the cabin would might tip them off to what was
> happening, although the masks sometimes deploy during a hijacking anyway.
>
> --
> Christopher J. Campbell
> World Famous Flight Instructor
> Port Orchard, WA
>
>
> If you go around beating the Bush, don't complain if you rile the animals.
>
>
>

[Eduardo Kaftanski]

In article <fIFJb.99695$pY.17255@fed1read04>,
R. Hubbell > wrote:
>On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 14:36:17 -0800 "C J Campbell"
> wrote:
>
>> All those people who worry about explosive decompression, innocent
>> bystanders getting shot, etc., are missing the point.
>
>
>Do the sky marshals guard every emergency exit? What would happen if a
>terrorist opened and emergency hatch at 36,000 ft? Can they be opened at all
>when the plane is at altitude?

he may kill himself and some unbelted passenger, but the plane would be
pretty much unharmed... I dont really think it would crash unless
other factor help (such as being just taking off or about to land...)





--
Eduardo Kaftanski |
| Freedom's just another word
http://e.nn.cl | for nothing left to loose.
|

[Viperdoc]

My understanding is that FA's do NOT know who the FAMs are or where or if
they are on board. This presents an added layer of security- suppose two
hijackers are working together, and one gets up and starts trouble or acts
like an unruly passenger. If the flight attendant then looks to the FAM for
help, the agent's cover is now blown, since they are then identified to any
further hijackers.

[Dave]

"Viperdoc" > wrote in message
...
> My understanding is that FA's do NOT know who the FAMs are or where or if
> they are on board. This presents an added layer of security- suppose two
> hijackers are working together, and one gets up and starts trouble or acts
> like an unruly passenger. If the flight attendant then looks to the FAM
for
> help, the agent's cover is now blown, since they are then identified to
any
> further hijackers.

There is a simple issue here. If the captain thinks there is a threat to his
plane he should not take off.

He also has an obligation to get as much information about the flight as he
can. If the "intelligence" services have such information he should be
provided with it. Likewise if the are FAMs on board he should know. as the
Commander he is legally responsible for what goes on with his flight.

If the Feds can pick an choose when a commander is the commander and when he
is not, where does that leave all pilots?

The FARs make it very clear whose in charge. Show me where they have changed
it.

Pilots wont fly if they believe there is a fault with the aircraft. Likewise
pilots should not fly if they know of a threat.

If they do and something catastrophic happens, then the pilots estate should
be sued. It sucks but I hope airline captains and crews have more sense than
to try and be macho about flying with a threat.

That's one of the first lessons a student pilot gets taught. There is no
room in the cockpit for macho behaviour.

So what if air travel gets a little difficult for a while. Its not that
important.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Richard Riley" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 12:04:39 -0000, "Dave" >
> wrote:
>
> :> But if there's ever another hijacking, it will end in one of two ways.
> :> If there are FAMs on board, they will subdue the hijackers with deadly
> :> force if necessary. If there are no FAMs on board, the passengers
> :> will subdue them with deadly force whether it's necessary or not.
> :
> :There is a third way for the incident to end - the hijacker succeeds!
There
> :is no guarantee that a FAM would do the business.
> :
> :Some of them would be too drunk on the free booze in Business class (They
> :wont be travelling economy) and not take the job seriously like the drunk
> :TSA chief at Dulles.
> :
> :Good way to build confidence in the security arrangements.
>
> The FA won't serve FAM's alcohol. They'd be shocked if a FAM asked
> for any. They know who the FAMs are.

Ummm....No, they do not. Not even the pilot knows. ?!?

[Mike O'Malley]

"R. Hubbell" > wrote in message
news:fIFJb.99695$pY.17255@fed1read04...
> On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 14:36:17 -0800 "C J Campbell"
> wrote:
>
> > All those people who worry about explosive decompression, innocent
> > bystanders getting shot, etc., are missing the point.
>
>
> Do the sky marshals guard every emergency exit? What would happen if a
> terrorist opened and emergency hatch at 36,000 ft? Can they be opened at all
> when the plane is at altitude?
>

To further elaborate on other's replys- the emergency exit is larger than the
opening it fills, so it must be pulled inwards in order to open. With a
conservative 7psi cabin differential and a 36x36" opening, someone would have to
overcome nearly 10,000 lbs of force holding the door shut.

> The new backscatter xray machines can see pretty much see everything. So
> I'd have to suspend disbelief to think your scenario could play out.
>
> Are you saying that you think a gun and/or bomb could be gotten on board
> somehow? You scenario seems to rest on that premise.
>

The new x-ray machines are great. But they don't have a "gun/bomb/knife" alarm
on them. They still require as screener to watch and pick out the weapons. You
have thousands and thousands of bags being scanned a day, and a screener can go
his or her entire career without seeing ONE weapon. This is a very difficult
task to approach from a vigilance standpoint, and it is NOT inconcievable that a
Bad Guy could sneak something through.

Look at how many people are able to accidently get guns and knives through
security.
>
>
> R. Hubbell
>
>
>
> >
> > If a sky marshal (or pilot, for that matter) really has to get into a fight
> > with a terrorist, odds are you are going to lose the airplane. Either the
> > terrorist will set off a bomb or the aircraft will be so damaged during the
> > fight that it will crash.
> >
> > This is still better odds of survival for the passengers and crew than
> > simply shooting down the hijacked aircraft, which the military will scramble
> > to do the moment that somebody tries to take over the airplane. The sky
> > marshal has only a very limited time to regain control. Otherwise the jet
> > will be shot down, no questions asked. So whatever the marshal can do, at
> > whatever cost, is better than the alternative.
> >
> > Either alternative is better than letting a terrorist take control of an
> > aircraft and fly it into a crowd of people or some valuable object.
> >
> > I would think that a pilot on a threatened aircraft would gradually reduce
> > the cabin pressure enough to cause the passengers to pass out. This could be
> > done in less time than it would probably take to break through the cockpit
> > door. The bad guys probably would not even notice and might even experience
> > a moment of euphoria. Once the passenger cabin is properly subdued the
> > pilots could make their way back and give oxygen to the sky marshals, disarm
> > the terrorists, and guarantee that control would be maintained after
> > everybody wakes up while the airplane is descending to land.
> >
> > This last alternative would still be very dangerous. The terrorists might
> > still set off a bomb, either before they pass out or after they wake up. The
> > oxygen masks dropping in the cabin would might tip them off to what was
> > happening, although the masks sometimes deploy during a hijacking anyway.
> >
> > --
> > Christopher J. Campbell
> > World Famous Flight Instructor
> > Port Orchard, WA
> >
> >
> > If you go around beating the Bush, don't complain if you rile the animals.
> >
> >
> >

[Dennis O'Connor]

No, you cannot open the cabin doors with the plane pressurized...
Shooting holes through the skin of the airframe will not cause explosive
decompression, it will just add some more airbleeds to what is designed to
be there, and to the inevitable leaky door seals, loose rivets, etc... If
you shoot enough holes (lots and lots) then cabin pressure will finally sag
off as the escaping air flow exceeds what the engines can pump into the
plane ...

Even if the whacko(s) succeed in completely blowing out some windows and
decompressing the airplane, they are in the same boat with the passengers,
being tied to an oxygen mask and unable to invade the cockpit - that's a
lose-lose scenario for them...

A weapon getting on board will likely come inside the food cart, be stashed
by a janitor, etc., rather than with a boarding passenger... Secondly, a
single gun/knife, or even a couple, will not take over the aircraft now that
passengers know that letting the whacko(s) get into the cockpit means a sure
death...
Cargo planes are a far more likely target for whackos now than heavily
defended passenger planes...

Denny

[Malcolm Teas]

"R. Hubbell" > wrote in message news:<fIFJb.99695$pY.17255@fed1read04>...
> ... The new backscatter xray machines can see pretty much see everything. So
> I'd have to suspend disbelief to think your scenario could play out.
>
> Are you saying that you think a gun and/or bomb could be gotten on board
> somehow? You scenario seems to rest on that premise.

Your assumption is that ALL luggage, cargo, and supplies for the plane
are xrayed with the new machines. In fact, reports have shown that
only part of the luggage (more carryon is examined), little of the
cargo, and almost none of the supplies are xrayed. And some of that
stuff that is xrayed is using the older machines.

So yes it's quite feasible. Witness the student recently who had to
finally tell the FAA of the stuff he'd hidden on several SW air
flights much earlier.

The information on this is available through regular news outlets, but
like always we just have to work a little to distinguish between real
information and commentator opinion.

-Malcolm Teas

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Richard Riley" > wrote in message
...
> :
> :Ummm....No, they do not. Not even the pilot knows. ?!?
>
> Uhh, yeah, they do. They're the ones that are flying without a
> ticket, without going through security, that aren't on the manifest,
> that aren't included in the final head count, that don't have to
> buckle their seatbelts on takeoff and landing, that have sat-enabled
> com that they can use during flight? Not to mention the pistols that
> might get accidentally seen and cause the FAs to panic if they didn't
> know it was one of the good guys?

Got a reference for that? That's news to a bunch of us.

> In any case, if a FAM drank on duty (especially in public) he'd be out
> of a job, just like any LEO.

That's not my point (some one else's urban legend I'd suspect) and it's
quite true.

[Jack Davis]

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 15:03:23 -0600, "Viperdoc"
> wrote:

>My understanding is that FA's do NOT know who the FAMs are or where or if
>they are on board.

Your understanding is incorrect. The entire crew knows who and where
the FAMs are and also if there are any other armed individuals (FBI,
DEA, etc.) on board.

-J


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Andrew Gideon]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:

>> In any case, if a FAM drank on duty (especially in public) he'd be out
>> of a job, just like any LEO.
>
> That's not my point (some one else's urban legend I'd suspect) and it's
> quite true.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48173-2004Jan1.html
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/03/1072908945226.html

Note that this fellow was supposedly on duty at the time. Also note that
this took under a minute to research (a search on news.google.com for "tsa
drunk").

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

Robert Henry wrote:

> The Star Trek approach to prevent commandeering of aircraft is a far more
> honest approach than air marshals. "This aircraft will self-destruct in 2
> minutes."

Presumably, this is on the mind of the pilot flying the fighter that would
be intercepting an airliner yelling 7600.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/01/03/1072908941801.html
http://msnbc.msn.com/Default.aspx?id=3868332&p1=0
http://washingtontimes.com/metro/20040102-114905-2340r.htm

- Andrew

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Jack Davis" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 15:03:23 -0600, "Viperdoc"
> > wrote:
>
> >My understanding is that FA's do NOT know who the FAMs are or where or if
> >they are on board.
>
> Your understanding is incorrect. The entire crew knows who and where
> the FAMs are and also if there are any other armed individuals (FBI,
> DEA, etc.) on board.
>
Could you provide a cite for that?

[Jack Davis]

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 22:09:09 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller" >
wrote:

>Could you provide a cite for that?

I forgot to include my signature - sorry. That should answer the
question.

-J

Jack Davis
B-737


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Jack Davis" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 22:09:09 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller" >
> wrote:
>
> >Could you provide a cite for that?
>
> I forgot to include my signature - sorry. That should answer the
> question.
>
> -J
>
> Jack Davis
> B-737
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

And this tells me...what?

[Ron Natalie]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message ...

> And this tells me...what?
>
That he thinks he's a twin-engine jet?

[Jack Davis]

On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 07:57:20 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller" >
wrote:

>And this tells me...what?

It should tell you that as a crew member for a major airline I am
qualified to answer the question regarding the crew's knowledge of
FAMs riding aboard our aircraft.

-J

Jack Davis
B-737


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> Won't the same thing happen with marshals, and possibly with armed
> pilots? With an armed officer on board, won't guns come into use more
> frequently? Won't aggressive passengers (like the one who recently got
> up and helped himself to a bottle of wine from the galley) trigger
> more armed confrontations, with increased likelihood of pistols going
> off and injuring bystanders and making non-decompressive holes in the
> aircraft?
>

Shouldn't happen. The sky marshal should have just one responsibility; to
prevent forced entry into the cockpit, if need be. The only time that need
should arise is in the case of someone brandishing a weapon. Since 9/11/01
there have been a few cases where passengers became unruly and even tried to
enter the cockpit. These wackos have generally been subdued by other
passengers. That's how it should be, even if a sky marshal is aboard. The
sky marshal should not expose himself as a sky marshal unless deadly force
has already been introduced into the situation.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
>
> There is a third way for the incident to end - the hijacker succeeds!
There
> is no guarantee that a FAM would do the business.
>

Quite right. But in that case you're no worse off than not having the
marshal aboard at all.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"R. Hubbell" > wrote in message
news:fIFJb.99695$pY.17255@fed1read04...
>
> Do the sky marshals guard every emergency exit? What would happen if a
> terrorist opened and emergency hatch at 36,000 ft? Can they be opened at
all
> when the plane is at altitude?
>

Well, if they can be opened at altitude, the terrorist would be the first to
depart. So what would his purpose be in opening one?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Saryon" > wrote in message
...
>
> Plug-type doors commonly found on airliners can't be opened once the
> aircraft is pressurized.
>

But what about the emergency exits?

[Dave]

http://www.naked-air.com/03flight.htm

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Dave" > wrote in message
...
>
> He also has an obligation to get as much information about the flight as
he
> can. If the "intelligence" services have such information he should be
> provided with it. Likewise if the are FAMs on board he should know.
>

Why?


>
> as the
> Commander he is legally responsible for what goes on with his flight.
>

So if his aircraft is hijacked the commander is responsible?


>
> If the Feds can pick an choose when a commander is the commander and
> when he is not, where does that leave all pilots?
>

The Feds are not doing that.


>
> The FARs make it very clear whose in charge. Show me where they have
> changed it.
>

They haven't.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Richard Riley" > wrote in message
...
>
> Uhh, yeah, they do. They're the ones that are flying without a
> ticket, without going through security, that aren't on the manifest,
> that aren't included in the final head count, that don't have to
> buckle their seatbelts on takeoff and landing, that have sat-enabled
> com that they can use during flight? Not to mention the pistols that
> might get accidentally seen and cause the FAs to panic if they didn't
> know it was one of the good guys?
>

Why wouldn't a marshal be included in the head count, or be on the manifest,
even if under an alias, or wear a seatbelt , etc.? Why would the need
"sat-enabled com that they can use during flight?"

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48173-2004Jan1.html
> http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/03/1072908945226.html
>
> Note that this fellow was supposedly on duty at the time. Also note that
> this took under a minute to research (a search on news.google.com for "tsa
> drunk").
>

The Age cite states, "It was not clear whether Brady was supposed to have
been on duty when he was arrested by a Metropolitan Washington Airports
Authority police officer."

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jack Davis" > wrote in message
...
>
> Your understanding is incorrect. The entire crew knows who and where
> the FAMs are
>

Seems counterproductive to me.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jack Davis" > wrote in message
...
>
> It should tell you that as a crew member for a major airline I am
> qualified to answer the question regarding the crew's knowledge of
> FAMs riding aboard our aircraft.
>

But how does "Jack Davis B-737" indicate that you're a crew member for a
major airline?

[Robert Moore]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote
> But what about the emergency exits?

At cruise altitude with normal pressurization (8-9 psi), there
would be 2-3 tons of force holding the average emergency exit
in place.

Bob Moore

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Robert Moore" > wrote in message
. 7...
>
> At cruise altitude with normal pressurization (8-9 psi), there
> would be 2-3 tons of force holding the average emergency exit
> in place.
>

Is there a procedure for a mishap that leaves the cabin at a higher pressure
than the outside atmosphere?

[Robert Moore]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote
> Is there a procedure for a mishap that leaves the cabin at a higher
> pressure than the outside atmosphere?

Well...the flightcrew can switch from automatic to manual on the
pressurization controller and then manually open the outflow valves
.....very slowly.

Bob Moore

[Ron Natalie]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>

> >
> > Do the sky marshals guard every emergency exit? What would happen if a
> > terrorist opened and emergency hatch at 36,000 ft? Can they be opened at
> all
> > when the plane is at altitude?
> >
>
> Well, if they can be opened at altitude, the terrorist would be the first to
> depart. So what would his purpose be in opening one?
>
You don't think the 9/11 hijackers weren't willing to die for the cause?

[Jack Davis]

On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 20:39:46 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>But how does "Jack Davis B-737" indicate that you're a crew member for a
>major airline?

How many different types of corporate entities operate 737s? I would
think it would be obvious that the chances are pretty good (although
not 100%, admittedly) that a 737 pilot would work for an airline and
would know the answer to the original post in question.

-J

Jack Davis
B-737


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Jack Davis]

On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 20:33:57 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>Seems counterproductive to me.

How is the flight crew's knowledge of the location and identities of
FAMs "counterproductive"?

-J

Jack Davis
B-737


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> You don't think the 9/11 hijackers weren't willing to die for the cause?
>

I do. But what cause would a terrorist be dying for by opening an emergency
hatch?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jack Davis" > wrote in message
...
>
> How many different types of corporate entities operate 737s? I would
> think it would be obvious that the chances are pretty good (although
> not 100%, admittedly) that a 737 pilot would work for an airline and
> would know the answer to the original post in question.
>

The chances are very good that a 737 pilot would work for an airline. But
how does "Jack Davis B-737" indicate that you're a pilot?

[Jack Davis]

On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 21:08:03 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>Is there a procedure for a mishap that leaves the cabin at a higher pressure
>than the outside atmosphere?

Not really, considering that this is the normal operating
configuration!

-J

Jack Davis
B-737


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jack Davis" > wrote in message
...
>
> How is the flight crew's knowledge of the location and identities of
> FAMs "counterproductive"?
>

Such knowledge would make it possible for them to identify the marshal to a
terrorist.

[Jack Davis]

On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 20:12:14 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>Well, if they can be opened at altitude, the terrorist would be the first to
>depart. So what would his purpose be in opening one?

They can't be opened at altitude.

-J

Jack Davis
B-737


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jack Davis" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > Is there a procedure for a mishap that leaves the cabin at a higher
pressure
> > than the outside atmosphere?
> >
>
> Not really, considering that this is the normal operating
> configuration!
>

Your airline normally operates with mishaps? Could you please identify that
airline? I want to avoid it.

[Jack Davis]

On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 22:13:24 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>The chances are very good that a 737 pilot would work for an airline. But
>how does "Jack Davis B-737" indicate that you're a pilot?

You're enjoying this, aren't you? ;)

-J

Jack Davis
B-737


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Jack Davis]

On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 22:16:25 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>Such knowledge would make it possible for them to identify the marshal to a
>terrorist.

Why would we do that? The FAM will make his own "introduction" to the
terrorist long before we could get involved!

-J

Jack Davis
B-737


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jack Davis" > wrote in message
...
>
> You're enjoying this, aren't you? ;)
>

Sure. Aren't you?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jack Davis" > wrote in message
...
>
> Why would we do that?
>

It does not have to be intentional.


>
> The FAM will make his own "introduction" to the
> terrorist long before we could get involved!
>

The terrorist might choose to get you involved as his first order of
business.

[Jack Davis]

On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 22:19:36 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>Your airline normally operates with mishaps? Could you please identify that
>airline? I want to avoid it.

Since when is operating " the cabin at a higher pressure than the
outside atmosphere" a mishap?

-J

Jack Davis
B-737


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Jack Davis]

On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 22:26:08 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>Sure. Aren't you?

Of course!

-J

Jack Davis
B-737


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Jack Davis]

On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 22:28:47 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>The terrorist might choose to get you involved as his first order of
>business

Since I'll be locked behind the "Taliban door" he'll never get the
chance to get me involved.

If there is any kind of serious altercation between a terrorist and a
Flight Attendant, the FAM will, as I said earlier, make his own
introductions.

-J

Jack Davis
B-737


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jack Davis" > wrote in message
...
>
> Since when is operating " the cabin at a higher pressure than the
> outside atmosphere" a mishap?
>

It isn't. You need to read messages a bit more carefully before responding
to them.

[Ron Natalie]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message ink.net...
>
> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
> m...
> >
> > You don't think the 9/11 hijackers weren't willing to die for the cause?
> >
>
> I do. But what cause would a terrorist be dying for by opening an emergency
> hatch?

Causing terror? That's what they do.

[Ron Natalie]

"Jack Davis" > wrote in message ...
> On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 21:08:03 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote:
>
> >Is there a procedure for a mishap that leaves the cabin at a higher pressure
> >than the outside atmosphere?
>
> Not really, considering that this is the normal operating
> configuration!
>
I think he means once you're on the ground.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jack Davis" > wrote in message
...
>
> If there is any kind of serious altercation between a terrorist and a
> Flight Attendant, the FAM will, as I said earlier, make his own
> introductions.
>

The purpose of an altercation between a terrorist and a flight attendant may
be for the purpose of identifying the marshal to the terrorist by the flight
attendant. It's better if the flight crew doesn't know who the marshal is
or even if one is aboard.

[Jack Davis]

On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 22:47:37 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>It isn't. You need to read messages a bit more carefully before responding
>to them.

So, we're in agreement about your post, then. Good! Now you go back
and re-read the messages.

-J

Jack Davis
B-737


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Causing terror? That's what they do.
>

That's a pretty small bit of terror to die for.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jack Davis" > wrote in message
...
>
> So, we're in agreement about your post, then. Good!
>

That's not apparent to me.


>
> Now you go back
> and re-read the messages.
>

There's no need for me to re-read them, I understood them.

[Jack Davis]

On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 22:51:17 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>The purpose of an altercation between a terrorist and a flight attendant may
>be for the purpose of identifying the marshal to the terrorist by the flight
>attendant. It's better if the flight crew doesn't know who the marshal is
>or even if one is aboard.

No, it isn't better for us to be in the dark. If things go to hell it
would be best if we knew who was on our side, especially considering
that some pilots are now carrying as well. It is also for this reason
that the crews need to know the identities and locations of other law
enforcement types as well.

Second, there have already been several cases where the cover of on
board FAMs have been compromised and in none of those case has the
flight crew been implicated or even involved. As is usually the case,
the well-trained and professional FAMs have secured the situation long
before the crews even knew what was happening.

-J

Jack Davis
B-737


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jack Davis" > wrote in message
...
>
> No, it isn't better for us to be in the dark.
>

Why would the flight crew need to know who the marshal is, or even if there
was one aboard?


>
> If things go to hell it
> would be best if we knew who was on our side, especially considering
> that some pilots are now carrying as well.
>

So that when you leave the cockpit to engage the terrorist you don't shoot
the marshal? Here's a tip: Don't leave the cockpit, don't even open the
door.


>
> Second, there have already been several cases where the cover of on
> board FAMs have been compromised and in none of those case has the
> flight crew been implicated or even involved.
>

Fine, but that is not reason for the crew to know the identity of the
marshal.


>
> As is usually the case,
> the well-trained and professional FAMs have secured the situation long
> before the crews even knew what was happening.
>

Which demonstrates the crew didn't need to know the identity of the marshal.

[Jack Davis]

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 17:48:01 -0500, "Ron Natalie" >
wrote:

>I think he means once you're on the ground.

I see. Well, the Boeings maintain a higher-than-ambient cabin pressure
on the ground anyway (I'm *sure* we'll go deeper into that some time
soon!) so I'm still not sure what he meant by the following:

"Is there a procedure for a mishap that leaves the cabin at a higher
pressure than the outside atmosphere"?

No matter. I appreciate your attempt at clearing things up for me.
I've taken a few years off from the news groups and I see things
haven't changed much since the last time I was here! ;)

-J

Jack Davis
B-737


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jack Davis" > wrote in message
...
>
> I see. Well, the Boeings maintain a higher-than-ambient cabin pressure
> on the ground anyway (I'm *sure* we'll go deeper into that some time
> soon!) so I'm still not sure what he meant by the following:
>
> "Is there a procedure for a mishap that leaves the cabin at a higher
> pressure than the outside atmosphere"?
>

How do you exit in an emergency if the cabin is at a higher pressure than
the outside atmosphere?


>
> No matter. I appreciate your attempt at clearing things up for me.
> I've taken a few years off from the news groups and I see things
> haven't changed much since the last time I was here! ;)
>

If you had the same difficulty last time the problem may be you. Have you
considered that?

[Jack Davis]

On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 23:27:07 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>So that when you leave the cockpit to engage the terrorist you don't shoot
>the marshal? Here's a tip: Don't leave the cockpit, don't even open the
>door.

Thanks for the tip - I'll try to remember that.

Give your brain a chance, boy! Suppose someone calls me on the
interphone and says he's a FAM and starts feeding me some BS about a
"situation"? How do I know for sure unless I've met him/her
previously? Would I be willing to risk the lives of my passengers and
crew on what could possibly be a diversion? How do I really know
what's going on back there? For all I know there could be six
terrorists poised at the door and I could be wasting valuable time
talking to some lying schmuck on the phone. Think about it and tell
me how you would handle the situation.

And, in the unlikely event that an FA has to knock someone in the head
with a fire extinguisher (present company comes to mind) because
he/she feels that another 9-11 style attack is in the works, I'd be
all kinds of ****ed-off if the FA accidentally clocked a FAM and
Abdullah is now free to take over the jet!

And to think my New Years resolution was to stop feeding the trolls...
That's a laugh!

-J

Jack Davis
B-737


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Jack Davis]

On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 23:39:54 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>How do you exit in an emergency if the cabin is at a higher pressure than
>the outside atmosphere?

You mean to tell me I actually hit upon a question to which you don't
already know the answer?

Now you've shocked me...

-J
-J

Jack Davis
B-737


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Jack Davis]

On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 23:39:54 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>If you had the same difficulty last time the problem may be you. Have you
>considered that?

Steve, the difficulty only arises when people who know absolutely
nothing about airline flying try to pass themselves off as experts.
Just like the media, they don't intend to let facts get in their way
and that gets my goat a bit.

Since this is a "piloting" news group I'll expand my signature for
those who haven't had the (dis)pleasure of reading my rambling
ruminations before and who may be wondering about my qualifications.
It's a bit self-serving and this will be the last time I do it.

-J

Jack Davis
Aircraft flown: Piper series, Cessna Cutlass, Citation, Beechcraft
King Air (90 and 200), F-27/FH-227, EMB-120, DC-9, B727,B737,B747.


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Geoffrey Barnes]

So, just how would the emergency exits get opened when the aircraft is on
the ground and needs to be evacuated, if the cabin pressure is significantly
higher than the outside pressure?

I'm guessing that the pressure differential at ground level isn't enough to
prevent the exits from opening, but that this differential is (logically)
much higher at altitude, and thus would prevent the exits from opening in
flight. But I could be wrong.

And yes, sadly the whole newsgroup thing is a never-ending disappointment.
The most humorous recent example came from the "gun loons" thread, where I
suspect that 5 or 6 people are STILL arguing about the difference between a
"box cutter" and a "carpet knife".

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jack Davis" > wrote in message
...
>
> You mean to tell me I actually hit upon a question to which you don't
> already know the answer?
>

It was my question.


>
> Now you've shocked me...
>

It appears I've stumped you as well.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jack Davis" > wrote in message
...
>
> Steve, the difficulty only arises when people who know absolutely
> nothing about airline flying try to pass themselves off as experts.
>

So what caused the difficulty this time?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Geoffrey Barnes" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> I'm guessing that the pressure differential at ground level isn't enough
to
> prevent the exits from opening, but that this differential is (logically)
> much higher at altitude, and thus would prevent the exits from opening in
> flight. But I could be wrong.
>

The pressure differential wouldn't have to be that great to create a
considerable force holding the exit in place. I don't know what the surface
area of an exit is, but a square twenty inches on a side has an area of 400
square inches. It would take 200 pounds of force to overcome a 1/2 psi
pressure differential.

[Jack Davis]

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 02:32:46 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>It appears I've stumped you as well.

Not quite. Here's a hint for you: When a Captain decides to evacuate
the jet the crew completes the Evacuation check list. At the
completion of that check list the engines and APU are shut down.

Got it figured out yet?

-J

Jack Davis
B-737


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Jack Davis]

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 02:33:36 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>
>"Jack Davis" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Steve, the difficulty only arises when people who know absolutely
>> nothing about airline flying try to pass themselves off as experts.
>>
>
>So what caused the difficulty this time?

You.

-J

Jack Davis
B-737


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Robert Moore]

"Geoffrey Barnes" > wrote

> So, just how would the emergency exits get opened when the aircraft is
> on the ground and needs to be evacuated, if the cabin pressure is
> significantly higher than the outside pressure?

I'm sure that every aircraft has some differences, but the Boeing B-707
and B-727 that I flew worked as follows:

It is desireable to have "some" pressurization differential at takeoff
for passenger comfort. This prevents the outflow valves from slamming
shut at liftoff with the engines at takeoff thrust causing a discomforting
pressure "bump". For obvious reasons, it is also desireable to have the
cabin de-pressurize after landing.

To accomplish these two goals, the pressurization controller has a switch
labeled "takeoff" and "landing". Normally left in the "landing" position,
the outflow valves are electrically driven open. Just before takeoff, the
switch is placed in the "takeoff" position and the automatic features of
the controller closes the valves somewhat to cause no more than a .125 psi
differential. This pressure limit is an FAA aircraft certification limit
and is sometimes stated as "no more than 250 ft below field elevation". The
reason for the limit is obvious....to permit an emergency evacuation.
Sometime during flight, the controller switch is placed in the landing mode
and upon touchdown, the "squat switch" on the landing gear signals the
controller to open the outflow valves.

At a maximum of .125 psi differential, the air load on an average emergency
exit would be less than 100 lbs.

Bob Moore
ATP B-707 B-727
PanAm (retired)

[Wdtabor]

In article .net>, "Steven
P. McNicoll" > writes:

>>
>> Do the sky marshals guard every emergency exit? What would happen if a
>> terrorist opened and emergency hatch at 36,000 ft? Can they be opened at
>all
>> when the plane is at altitude?
>>
>
>Well, if they can be opened at altitude, the terrorist would be the first to
>depart. So what would his purpose be in opening one?
>

Not only that, but if he can open it at altitude, then he is Superman and
you're going to lose anyway.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jack Davis" > wrote in message
...
>
> Thanks for the tip - I'll try to remember that.
>

No charge.


>
> Give your brain a chance, boy!
>

That's good advice, you should heed it yourself.


>
> Suppose someone calls me on the
> interphone and says he's a FAM and starts feeding me some BS about a
> "situation"? How do I know for sure unless I've met him/her
> previously?
>

How do you know what for sure? If the person on the phone is truly a
marshal you have a "situation". If the person is posing as a marshal do you
not also have a "situation"?


>
> Would I be willing to risk the lives of my passengers and
> crew on what could possibly be a diversion?
>

How is the risk increased by not knowing if the caller is truly a marshal?


>
> How do I really know what's going on back there?
>

You don't. Why would you need to?


>
> For all I know there could be six
> terrorists poised at the door and I could be wasting valuable time
> talking to some lying schmuck on the phone. Think about it and tell
> me how you would handle the situation.
>

Schmuck or marshal makes no difference, if someone on the phone tells you
there's a "situation" in the cabin then there's a "situation" in the cabin.
Advise ATC that you have a "situation" and divert to the nearest suitable
field. Don't open the cockpit door for anyone, let security forces on the
ground sort out the "situation".


>
> And, in the unlikely event that an FA has to knock someone in the head
> with a fire extinguisher (present company comes to mind) because
> he/she feels that another 9-11 style attack is in the works, I'd be
> all kinds of ****ed-off if the FA accidentally clocked a FAM and
> Abdullah is now free to take over the jet!
>

So what was the marshal doing that caused the FA to believe he was about to
initiate another 9/11 style attack?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Richard Riley" > wrote in message
...
>
> If you're really interested I'll be happy to tell you. But it seems
> like you're just looking for an argument. So I'll end it here.
>

Tell me.

[Jack Davis]

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 18:06:33 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:

>>"Jack Davis" > wrote in message
...

>> How do I really know what's going on back there?
>>
>
>You don't. Why would you need to?

Oh, I get it now. We'll talk again when you get some PIC time.
Congratulations! You just made it to the Kill file along with the
"Rockaway baby". (Is that you, Bill?)

-J

Jack Davis
B-737


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jack Davis" > wrote in message
...
>
> Oh, I get it now. We'll talk again when you get some PIC time.
> Congratulations! You just made it to the Kill file along with the
> "Rockaway baby". (Is that you, Bill?)
>

No doubt I join many others there who raised questions you could not answer.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jack Davis" > wrote in message
...
>
> Not quite. Here's a hint for you: When a Captain decides to evacuate
> the jet the crew completes the Evacuation check list. At the
> completion of that check list the engines and APU are shut down.
>
> Got it figured out yet?
>

I've got you figured out.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jack Davis" > wrote in message
...
>
> You.
>

I'll try to use smaller words.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Nomen Nescio" ]> wrote in message
...
>
> To me, it seems quite reasonable to have the flight crew aware of the
presence of a
> FAM.
>
> A couple of points:
>
> Point 1) If the pilot hears some shooting in the back, it would be a damn
good idea for him
> to know if someone back there was authorized to carry a gun. It just might
be somewhat
> relevent to the way the situation is handled from the cockpit.
>

How so? Whether or not he knows if anyone in the back was authorized to
carry a gun, he knows shots have been fired. How would who fired the shots
alter his course of action from that point?


>
> Point 2) Any civillian who is licensed for concealed carry (and there are
a lot) has probably
> spent some time looking in a mirror to see how obvious the "printing" of
their weapon is. I
> can usually pick out a concealed weapon where most people won't simple
because I
> know what the signs are. So let's say I notice that a passenger is
carrying. Do I quietly
> inform a FA? Most likely, yes.
>

Why?


>
> How would a FA handle that if they could not verify that
> the individual was a LEO? I wouldn't consider "Uh, I dunno." a sufficient
answer whereas
> a quiet "Don't worry about it" would be my cue to sit down and shut up.
>

Do sky marshals not carry any form of positive identification? What would
you expect a FA to do with that information?


>
> Point 3) As PIC, I would be really ****ed off if the Feds said I had no
right to know if
> someone is armed on MY plane.
>

Why?

[Dave]

Our intel guys have concluded - after sifting through a
> lot of specific information, including the results of interrogation of
detainees
> at Guantánamo Bay - that terrorists remain convinced that airliners are
still
> the most powerful weapon readily available to them.

The prisoners at Guantanamo Bay have been their 2 years. Crashing planes was
what was one the agenda then. Unless the guys in orange jumpsuits have been
home in the meantime for them its still 2001. Good intel there, only two
years old.

We can all sleep in peace knowing that the US intelligence services are on
top of the job.

[Rob Perkins]

On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 00:53:04 -0000, "Dave" >
wrote:

>The prisoners at Guantanamo Bay have been their 2 years. Crashing planes was
>what was one the agenda then. Unless the guys in orange jumpsuits have been
>home in the meantime for them its still 2001. Good intel there, only two
>years old.

Actually I seem to recall reading (TIME magazine, I think) that
prisoners have been released and other have been detained and
transported to Gitmo. Not a revolving door, but there has been some
turnover there.

Rob

[John Galban]

Robert Moore > wrote in message >...
> Just before takeoff, the
> switch is placed in the "takeoff" position and the automatic features of
> the controller closes the valves somewhat to cause no more than a .125 psi
> differential. This pressure limit is an FAA aircraft certification limit
> and is sometimes stated as "no more than 250 ft below field elevation". The

Thanks for the excellent explanation, Bob. Back when I had the
misfortune of having to fly commercially, I used to notice that my
altimeter watch would drop about 200 ft. as we taxied away from the
gate. I always wondered how that would impact getting the door open
in case of emergency.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)