[OT] USA - TSA Obstructing Armed Pilots?

[No Spam!]

All -

I'm especially interested in comments from any of the "current and
former military pilots with top-secret clearances" (as mentioned below)
that might be out there.

---

Where are the armed pilots?
---------------------------
By Tracy W. Price
Washington Post, 12 December 2003

On Nov. 25, 2002, President Bush signed the Arming Pilots Against
Terrorism Act. The law compelled the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) to train and arm airline pilots who volunteered for
the program. One year later, many Americans believe that large numbers
of airline pilots are now carrying guns. Sadly, they are wrong.
On Aug. 26, the TSA gleefully reported that far fewer airline
pilots have volunteered for the armed pilot program than pilot groups
estimated might volunteer. Currently, only a few thousand pilots have
volunteered for the program out of about 100,000 that are eligible. The
large majority of Americans who support arming airline pilots might
rightfully ask: Where are the volunteers? The answer to the question is
really quite simple.
The TSA has very intentionally and successfully minimized the
number of volunteers through thinly veiled threats and by making the
program difficult and threatening to get into.
Airline pilots practice their profession at the pleasure of the
federal government. Airline Captains must hold an airline transport
pilot's certificate (ATP) issued by the FAA. To gain the experience
required by a major airline, a pilot must have thousands of flight hours
amassed over many years. Once hired by an airline, pilots are required
to demonstrate their proficiency in four-hour long sessions in flight
simulators twice each year. Annually, airline pilots will receive a
"line check" in which "check pilots" ride in the cockpit and evaluate
the crew's performance. Several times each year, FAA examiners — without
notice — show up to give pilots a check ride. Twice each year, airline
captains are required to report to FAA-designated physicians for a
physical and psychological exam. Medical history is evaluated and a
physical exam with exacting standards is performed. FAA doctors are
trained to ask probing questions, looking for any sign of psychological
instability, stress or depression. Failing to meet the standard for any
of these evaluations will, of course, result in immediate removal from
the flying schedule and loss of any opportunity to be employed as a pilot.
Now, fresh with this backdrop of the professional life of an
airline pilot, consider the armed pilot program that the TSA has
constructed. Understand that the TSA is opposed to the armed pilot
program. Last year, the TSA granted itself the power to revoke a pilot's
ATP if it deems him to be a security threat. Pilots who volunteer for
training to carry guns must complete a very detailed, 13-page
application and submit to a three-hour written psychological exam
probing into the most private workings of any person: his thoughts,
feelings, opinions and emotions. Pilots who pass this
government-sponsored psychological strip-search are then ordered to
report to a government psychologist for a one-on-one "interview."
For the pilots that finally make it into training, they will have
to travel at their own expense to and pay for their own room and board
in Artesia, N.M. Artesia is a four-hour drive from El Paso, Texas, the
nearest city.
Airline pilots evaluate the totality of the TSA's armed-pilot
program and they have declined to participate in droves. Too many
airline pilots view the TSA armed pilot program as a potentially career
threatening fiasco that will cost each pilot who volunteers at least one
week of flight pay and require him to bare his soul to an out-of-control
government agency that hates the idea of armed pilots. Couple this with
the breathtaking failure of many current and former military pilots with
top-secret clearances to pass the TSA psychological evaluations and
pilots are saying, "No, thanks."
To justify their intrusive tactics, the TSA says, "We need to make
sure that each pilot we allow to fly armed can use the gun to kill
terrorists and then be calm enough to land safely." In other words, We
think that you'd be better off dead. Obviously, pilots won't volunteer
for the program in the first place unless they are willing to use a gun.
Moreover, if a pilot is "screened out" of the program by the TSA
psychological soothsayers and terrorists attack his cockpit, the outcome
is very certain: He, all of his passengers and possibly many thousands
on the ground will soon be dead. A logical armed-pilot program would not
be looking for ways to screen pilots out; it would be looking for ways
to encourage more volunteers.
We have endured almost two years of TSA searches of law-abiding
citizens, yet recent news reports show that al Qaeda operatives remain
interested in targeting airliners. Nothing the TSA has done thus far has
sufficiently deterred al Qaeda. Embarrassed by a college student who
easily snuck knives on board airliners, the TSA now plans to use
technology that will "see through" each passenger's clothing and present
them naked to the government screeners.
Further violation of our rights is not the answer, but hardening
the target is the answer. Congress should take all discretion about
which pilots get into the armed-pilot program away from the TSA, just as
36 states have done with "Shall Issue" concealed carry laws.

Capt. Tracy W. Price flies Boeing 737s for a major airline and is the
former chairman of the Airline Pilots' Security Alliance.

Copyright © 2003 News World Communications, Inc.

[Mongo Jones]

>In talk.politics.guns "No Spam!" > wrote:

>All -
>
>I'm especially interested in comments from any of the "current and
>former military pilots with top-secret clearances" (as mentioned below)
>that might be out there.

Greg "Wild Weasel" Dean, where are you?

[Ed Rasimus]

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:49:35 -0600, "No Spam!" >
wrote:

>All -
>
>I'm especially interested in comments from any of the "current and
>former military pilots with top-secret clearances" (as mentioned below)
>that might be out there.
>
>---

First, this reply is not cross-posted but only appended to
rec.aviation.military.

I'm a former military pilot who held TS clearance. That is irrelevant
to the article you posted, since I don't fly for the airlines.

TS clearance has nothing at all to do with competence with personal
weapons. A military aviation rating has nothing to do with competence
with personal weapons.

I am an NRA Life Member and have held a concealed carry permit for the
last nine years.

I have a close friend, ex-fighter aviator and current major airline
pilot who is a graduate of both Gunsite and Thunder Ranch. He has a
concealed carry permit in his current state of residence and is a
reserve police sergeant in a major American city near his airline
domicile. He has not been approved (yet) for the TSA training.

Dare we note that federal bureaucracy is seldom the most efficient
solution to major problems. I like the idea of armed cockpit crews. I
like it better than sky marshalls. I am convinced that training is
required, but feel that the training could be better handled by
contract schools rather than federal bureaucrats.

Now, did you have a specific reason for asking for comments from
former military with TS clearances?


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[No Spam!]

Ed Rasimus wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:49:35 -0600, "No Spam!" >
> wrote:
>>All -
>>
>>I'm especially interested in comments from any of the "current and
>>former military pilots with top-secret clearances" (as mentioned below)
>>that might be out there.
>>---
> First, this reply is not cross-posted but only appended to
> rec.aviation.military.
>
> I'm a former military pilot who held TS clearance. That is irrelevant
> to the article you posted, since I don't fly for the airlines.

No, it's not... see below...

....snipped...
>
> Now, did you have a specific reason for asking for comments from
> former military with TS clearances?
> Ed Rasimus

Ed -

Yes, I did - a very specific reason. I am well aware of the difference
between military & civilian aviation and the purposes of clearances,
having held them myself.

As I stated in my original post, Please read the article, which, in
part, states:

"Airline pilots evaluate the totality of the TSA's armed-pilot program
and they have declined to participate in droves. Too many airline pilots
view the TSA armed pilot program as a potentially career threatening
fiasco that will cost each pilot who volunteers at least one week of
flight pay and require him to bare his soul to an out-of-control
government agency that hates the idea of armed pilots. Couple this with
the breathtaking failure of many current and former military pilots with
top-secret clearances to pass the TSA psychological evaluations and
pilots are saying, "No, thanks.""

I am asking for any feedback: confirming, denying, or otherwise, from
"many current and former military pilots with top-secret clearances".
I'd also welcome feedback from anyone else _knowledable_ about the
subject. If the TSA is failing pilots with former or current TS (or
other) clearances, it is, at least to me, a clear sign the program is
not working as planned and is, as the author suggests, merely a ploy by
the TSA to discourage pilots from trying to get certified.

I realize too many idiots post here, but perhaps you could read the
article in question before deciding I had no valid reason to post what I
posted.

[Ed Rasimus]

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 11:44:42 -0600, "No Spam!" >
wrote:

>Ed Rasimus wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:49:35 -0600, "No Spam!" >
>> wrote:
>>>All -
>>>
>>>I'm especially interested in comments from any of the "current and
>>>former military pilots with top-secret clearances" (as mentioned below)
>>>that might be out there.
>>>---
>> First, this reply is not cross-posted but only appended to
>> rec.aviation.military.
>>
>> I'm a former military pilot who held TS clearance. That is irrelevant
>> to the article you posted, since I don't fly for the airlines.
>
>No, it's not... see below...
>
>...snipped...
>>
>> Now, did you have a specific reason for asking for comments from
>> former military with TS clearances?
>> Ed Rasimus
>
>Ed -
>
>Yes, I did - a very specific reason. I am well aware of the difference
>between military & civilian aviation and the purposes of clearances,
>having held them myself.
>
>As I stated in my original post, Please read the article, which, in
>part, states:
>
>"Airline pilots evaluate the totality of the TSA's armed-pilot program
>and they have declined to participate in droves. Too many airline pilots
>view the TSA armed pilot program as a potentially career threatening
>fiasco that will cost each pilot who volunteers at least one week of
>flight pay and require him to bare his soul to an out-of-control
>government agency that hates the idea of armed pilots. Couple this with
>the breathtaking failure of many current and former military pilots with
>top-secret clearances to pass the TSA psychological evaluations and
>pilots are saying, "No, thanks.""
>
>I am asking for any feedback: confirming, denying, or otherwise, from
>"many current and former military pilots with top-secret clearances".
>I'd also welcome feedback from anyone else _knowledable_ about the
>subject. If the TSA is failing pilots with former or current TS (or
>other) clearances, it is, at least to me, a clear sign the program is
>not working as planned and is, as the author suggests, merely a ploy by
>the TSA to discourage pilots from trying to get certified.
>
>I realize too many idiots post here, but perhaps you could read the
>article in question before deciding I had no valid reason to post what I
>posted.

I responded, as someone meeting the criteria you established and added
some other qualifications to render my opinion from among the
"knowledgeable".

Let me point out a couple of things again--cross-posting is poor form.
Anonymity in both name and domain are poor form. Attacking someone who
responded to your question as not _knowledgeable_ is poor form. And, I
sincerely hope that I don't fall among the "too many idiots" who post
here.

Let me point out also that security clearance is not related to
qualification for line-of-duty weapons carriage. Security clearance
lapses when leaving the military and unless an airline pilot is also
flying Guard or Reserve, they do not normally have a security
clearance.

The article you posted is by an individual who has an opinion, but it
does not support the contention (although I've got little reason to
doubt the validity) that the TSA is a mis-managed bureaucracy. There
is no mention of pilots failing to pass the psychological evaluations
and no relationship between such passage or failure and a current or
past security clearance.

The program is barely a year old. Many airline pilots do not choose to
assume the responsibility of armed intervention. Many pilots eagerly
volunteer. The program is behind in qualification. The standards
required may not be valid. The assumption of qualification by the
candidates may not be valid.

Airline pilots typically fly less than twelve days a month. A week for
training, if they voluntarily choose such a course, is not a "make or
break" hardship for these guys.

Now, let me ask again. You wrote:
>I am asking for any feedback: confirming, denying, or otherwise, from
>"many current and former military pilots with top-secret clearances".

I ask "confirming, denying or otherwise..." what??? And, you wrote:

>If the TSA is failing pilots with former or current TS (or
>other) clearances, it is, at least to me, a clear sign the program is
>not working as planned

Can you show some evidence of this?

If you ask questions, one can only assume you seek information or
discussion and not that you are simply advocating.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[The Lone Weasel]

"No Spam!" > wrote in
:

> All -
>
> I'm especially interested in comments from any of the
> "current and former military pilots with top-secret
> clearances" (as mentioned below) that might be out there.

> Where are the armed pilots?

> By Tracy W. Price
> Washington Post, 12 December 2003

"No Spam": this is an editorial that appeared in the
WASHINGTON TIMES, not the Washington Post, 11 days ago, which
is why you neglected to provide a URL like the previous
posters of this opinion piece back on the 12th.

cf: Message-ID: >

cf: Message-ID: <7KzCb.10078$m83.1043@fed1read01>

So your attempt at legitimization through fake association
fails.

You're just a gunlobby shill spamming for Glock, eh "No
Spam"?

Laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh.

--

Join the NRA Blacklist!
http://www.nrablacklist.com/

The Lone Weasel

[Emmanuel.Gustin]

In rec.aviation.military No Spam! > wrote:

: Further violation of our rights is not the answer, but hardening
: the target is the answer. Congress should take all discretion about
: which pilots get into the armed-pilot program away from the TSA, just as
: 36 states have done with "Shall Issue" concealed carry laws.

This seems rather silly to me. Aviation authorities all over
the world take a strict line when monitoring all the professional
skills and qualifications of airline pilots. If carrying guns
is added to the package of their tasks, then why should they
be any less strict about that? The logical thing to do, if pilots
have to act as air marshalls as well, is to give them the full
training of air marshalls, so I suspect one week's training is
an absolute minimum anyway. I also think that it is very sensible
to build in barriers to deflect away people who wouldn't take
the responsibility seriously enough.

If the TSA is inefficient, bureaucratic, and unfriendly about it,
what's new? The entire system seems to be that way. Personally
I try to limit contact with US airlines and US airports to
a minimum, even if that means having to take a flight from
Heathrow (still, not nearly as bad as Boston).

--
Emmanuel Gustin

[Dudley Henriques]

"No Spam!" > wrote in message
...
> All -
>
> I'm especially interested in comments from any of the "current and
> former military pilots with top-secret clearances" (as mentioned below)
> that might be out there.
>
> ---
>
> Where are the armed pilots?
> ---------------------------
> By Tracy W. Price

response restricted to rec.aviation.military

I don't understand why you are posting an article that states an opinion,
then asking for information on security clearances without stating your
reasons for seeking the information and/or your opinion on the posted
article. Not that there's anything sinister about that, but I think I can
tell you up front that most of us who have gone through a security clearance
situation don't really talk about it, even in private.....at least that's
been my personal experience. I think I can tell you with some degree of
authority however that those who WILL discuss these things with you failed
the security investigation :-)))
I don't believe you are going to gender much response here with this type of
post; at least from anyone who has actual experience with these matters.
If all you want are opinions on the article, I would suggest you say so. I'm
sure there are those out here with opinions both pro and con on the armed
pilot issue. If this is the case, I'll submit to you that I'm for arming
pilots and in no way interested in discussing the in's and out's of the
security clearance mechanism.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[Mike Marron]

>"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:

>I don't understand why you are posting an article that states an opinion,
>then asking for information on security clearances without stating your
>reasons for seeking the information and/or your opinion on the posted
>article. Not that there's anything sinister about that, but I think I can
>tell you up front that most of us who have gone through a security clearance
>situation don't really talk about it, even in private.....at least that's
>been my personal experience. I think I can tell you with some degree of
>authority however that those who WILL discuss these things with you failed
>the security investigation :-)))

I've been following this thread with interest and was just curious as
to exactly what constitutes a "security clearance." Can't you even
provide us with a vague, thumbnail sketch of what a top secret
security clearance is?

>I don't believe you are going to gender much response here with this type of
>post; at least from anyone who has actual experience with these matters.
>If all you want are opinions on the article, I would suggest you say so. I'm
>sure there are those out here with opinions both pro and con on the armed
>pilot issue. If this is the case, I'll submit to you that I'm for arming
>pilots and in no way interested in discussing the in's and out's of the
>security clearance mechanism.

With family flying down to visit over the holidays, my darling wife is
all worried about their safety due to the raised threat-level from
Arab terrorists. I can certainly understand why guys like you and Ed
aren't interested in discussing the in's and out's of the security
clearance mechanism, but again, since the topic was brought up
can't either of you briefly explain what a security clearance is and
why it's so important? Again, just asking and please pardon my
ignorance.

Interesting article, BTW.

>Dudley Henriques
>International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
>Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
>For personal email, please replace
>the z's with e's.
>dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
>
>
>

[Tarver Engineering]

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...

> I've been following this thread with interest and was just curious as
> to exactly what constitutes a "security clearance." Can't you even
> provide us with a vague, thumbnail sketch of what a top secret
> security clearance is?

It is a security violation to even say you have a "top secret" clearance,
Mike. The psyche exam is someting the system has wanted ever since the
first airliner pilot suicide was confirmed. When the system was made up of
mostly ex-mil operators, such screening was not thought to be necessay, as
military pilots had already been conditioned to produce an expected
response.

[Juvat]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Mike
Marron blurted out:

>I've been following this thread with interest and was just curious as
>to exactly what constitutes a "security clearance." Can't you even
>provide us with a vague, thumbnail sketch of what a top secret
>security clearance is?

Law Enforcement (military and civil) check out your background...you
interview...short time later you're given access to material higher up
the "classification food chain."

>With family flying down to visit over the holidays, my darling wife is
>all worried about their safety due to the raised threat-level from
>Arab terrorists.

Sincerely relax...lots of guys with guns on US airliners right now. I
asked a couple flying with us on Monday, "Uhhh, it's shoot to kill
right?" They nodded.

>I can certainly understand why guys like you and Ed
>aren't interested in discussing the in's and out's of the security
>clearance mechanism, but again, since the topic was brought up
>can't either of you briefly explain what a security clearance is and
>why it's so important? Again, just asking and please pardon my
>ignorance.

I don't think the issue of a top secret security clearance is the
point, rather here are guys that formerly were "trusted agents" that
are not simply rubber stamped for acceptance in the FFDO program.

Currently over 1000 FFDOs (airline pilots with guns) by the end of
2004 over 5000...not too shabby.

Juvat

[Ed Rasimus]

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 18:23:28 GMT, Mike Marron >
wrote:

>>"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>
>>I don't understand why you are posting an article that states an opinion,
>>then asking for information on security clearances without stating your
>>reasons for seeking the information and/or your opinion on the posted
>>article. Not that there's anything sinister about that, but I think I can
>>tell you up front that most of us who have gone through a security clearance
>>situation don't really talk about it, even in private.....at least that's
>>been my personal experience. I think I can tell you with some degree of
>>authority however that those who WILL discuss these things with you failed
>>the security investigation :-)))
>
>I've been following this thread with interest and was just curious as
>to exactly what constitutes a "security clearance." Can't you even
>provide us with a vague, thumbnail sketch of what a top secret
>security clearance is?

I don't have a clue what DH is alluding to. I had a TS (NATO Top
Secret ATOMAL) but never went to some of the more esoteric levels. You
need a security clearance to access some information about weapons
systems and targeting. Basically there are three levels of security
classification: confidential, secret and top secret. (There are other
levels, but the three pretty much characterize the system).

You get a secret clearance when you qualify for commissioning. It
requires (maybe this has changed), a NAC or National Agency Check.
This is about the level of qualification for a gun purchase--it
involves an FBI and local state background check for various records.
A BI or Background Investigation, is required for a TS clearance. This
involves a credit check, the basic criminal check, and a series of
interview of business and personal references that you've submitted.
It may include further investigation depending upon what is discovered
in the initial interviews.

Regardless of you security clearance level, access to classified
information requires "need to know"--IOW, you can't get a TS clearance
and then go into the vault and read everything there or walk into any
office and see what's going on.
>
>>I don't believe you are going to gender much response here with this type of
>>post; at least from anyone who has actual experience with these matters.
>>If all you want are opinions on the article, I would suggest you say so. I'm
>>sure there are those out here with opinions both pro and con on the armed
>>pilot issue. If this is the case, I'll submit to you that I'm for arming
>>pilots and in no way interested in discussing the in's and out's of the
>>security clearance mechanism.

My point exactly. Security clearance and arming individuals are apples
and oranges.
>
>With family flying down to visit over the holidays, my darling wife is
>all worried about their safety due to the raised threat-level from
>Arab terrorists. I can certainly understand why guys like you and Ed
>aren't interested in discussing the in's and out's of the security
>clearance mechanism, but again, since the topic was brought up
>can't either of you briefly explain what a security clearance is and
>why it's so important? Again, just asking and please pardon my
>ignorance.

I've got no problem in discussing clearances and what they relate to.
There is nothing classified or related to national security in the
discussion of what it takes to gain a clearance. The issue is what you
can learn after you have the clearance.
>


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Dudley Henriques]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 18:23:28 GMT, Mike Marron >
> wrote:
>
> >>"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:

> I don't have a clue what DH is alluding to.

Basically, what I'm "alluding to" is that although there's no problem at all
discussing security clearances in the generic sense as you have done here;
if you personally have a security clearance, or even HAD a security
clearance, discussing that clearance, and anything associated with it's
relationship to you personally is bad juju! In fact, I would even go so far
as to say with all due respect, that although the generic information you
gave is fine, I would not have included the fact that you personally had a
clearance, even though the fact can be assumed. A quick call to any local
FBI office will I'm sure confirm this for you if you have any question about
it.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[Jim Yanik]

Juvat > wrote in
:

> After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Mike
> Marron blurted out:
>
>>I've been following this thread with interest and was just curious as
>>to exactly what constitutes a "security clearance." Can't you even
>>provide us with a vague, thumbnail sketch of what a top secret
>>security clearance is?
>
> Law Enforcement (military and civil) check out your background...you
> interview...short time later you're given access to material higher up
> the "classification food chain."

It's a judgement about trustworthyness.If one can trust a military pilot
with a security clearance(and to carry a gun while flying a military
plane),why must they be psychologically tested AGAIN for being armed in a
commercial plane? Especially when they already undergo regular psy testing
to maintain their commercial flight status.

If they are stable enough to pilot a plane full of passengers,why would
they NOT be stable enough to carry a firearm? (on a commercial plane)

Conversely,if a pilot is not judged stable enough to be armed while aboard
a commercial plane,are they stable/reliable enough to perform the job of
pilot if unarmed?

Fail that extra psy-test,and there goes your livelihood.
If not,please explain why.


The extra psy test is just a way of 1;scaring off interested pilots,2;an
added obstruction solely for the purpose of limiting the number of FFDOs.


>
>>With family flying down to visit over the holidays, my darling wife is
>>all worried about their safety due to the raised threat-level from
>>Arab terrorists.
>
> Sincerely relax...lots of guys with guns on US airliners right now. I
> asked a couple flying with us on Monday, "Uhhh, it's shoot to kill
> right?" They nodded.

Except there's not enough Sky Marshals to put even ONE on every daily US
flight,not considering international flights.And standard practice is TWO
Marshals per flight.Chances are better that a flight has NO Marshals
aboard.
BTW,I believe one is not supposed to be able to tell who the Marshals are
on a flight.






--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Jim Yanik]

Ed Rasimus > wrote in
:



>
> My point exactly. Security clearance and arming individuals are apples
> and oranges.

A security clearance is a form of TRUST,is it not? It says something about
a person's character.

Would an untrustworthy person be able to obtain a security clearance?



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Ed Rasimus]

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 22:43:18 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> wrote:

>
>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 18:23:28 GMT, Mike Marron >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >>"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
>
>> I don't have a clue what DH is alluding to.
>
>Basically, what I'm "alluding to" is that although there's no problem at all
>discussing security clearances in the generic sense as you have done here;
>if you personally have a security clearance, or even HAD a security
>clearance, discussing that clearance, and anything associated with it's
>relationship to you personally is bad juju! In fact, I would even go so far
>as to say with all due respect, that although the generic information you
>gave is fine, I would not have included the fact that you personally had a
>clearance, even though the fact can be assumed. A quick call to any local
>FBI office will I'm sure confirm this for you if you have any question about
>it.
>Dudley Henriques

Well, although you may have good reason for what you say, in my
experience, both in the military and in industry, there was never any
problem in the statement that one possessed a security clearance. In
fact, in industry, your company ID badge displayed stars to quickly
identify the level of your clearance. Two stars = secret, three stars
= TS. And, your access to specific compartmentalized programs (i.e.
"black") was displayed with a letter and number code in an "egg crate"
at the bottom of your badge. It was easy to determine if someone had
access to a program by looking at your badge and theirs--same numbers
and in a cleared location, OK to discuss if they reasonably had "need
to know".

The FBI had nothing to do with security clearances for active duty
military and AFAIK, nothing to do with industrial access which was
handled by an NSA sub-office called "DISCO".

Seriously, there's nothing magic about security clearances. The
security issue is not who has one, but what is accessible after the
fact. There is little to be gained in status by possession of a
clearance and nothing to be added by ascribing some sort of "bad juju"
to the system.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Tarver Engineering]

"Jim Yanik" > wrote in message
.. .
> Ed Rasimus > wrote in
> :
>
>
>
> >
> > My point exactly. Security clearance and arming individuals are apples
> > and oranges.
>
> A security clearance is a form of TRUST,is it not? It says something about
> a person's character.

> Would an untrustworthy person be able to obtain a security clearance?

A laid off B-2 mechanic, with a TS clearance under an assumed name, later
went crazy and he then shot up a Jewish center and then a mailman.

[Mike Marron]

>Juvat > ("juvat" my ass) wrote:
>>Mike Marron wrote:

>>With family flying down to visit over the holidays, my darling wife is
>>all worried about their safety due to the raised threat-level from
>>Arab terrorists.

>Sincerely relax...lots of guys with guns on US airliners right now.

Jeez Juvat, *that* really helped. I just had my wife read your
response but I'm afraid your "RELAX.......LOTS OF GUYS WITH
GUNS ON US AIRLINERS RIGHT NOW" failed to set her at ease,
if ya' know what I mean.

BTW, 'juvat" means what, no balls or glory or sumpthin like that?

>asked a couple flying with us on Monday, "Uhhh, it's shoot to kill
>right?" They nodded.

Fun fun fun!!! Shootout at the OK corral at FL340!

>>I can certainly understand why guys like you and Ed
>>aren't interested in discussing the in's and out's of the security
>>clearance mechanism, but again, since the topic was brought up
>>can't either of you briefly explain what a security clearance is and
>>why it's so important? Again, just asking and please pardon my
>>ignorance.

>I don't think the issue of a top secret security clearance is the
>point, rather here are guys that formerly were "trusted agents" that
>are not simply rubber stamped for acceptance in the FFDO program.

>Currently over 1000 FFDOs (airline pilots with guns) by the end of
>2004 over 5000...not too shabby.

Please understand, "lots of guys with guns on airliners right now"
sounds well and good to me, but I'm afraid you failed to reassure
my poor wife that she's any safer by your response.

>Juvat

Semper foo fi foe fum...

[Ed Rasimus]

On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 01:03:54 GMT, Mike Marron >
wrote:

>>Juvat > ("juvat" my ass) wrote:
>>>Mike Marron wrote:
>
>>>With family flying down to visit over the holidays, my darling wife is
>>>all worried about their safety due to the raised threat-level from
>>>Arab terrorists.
>
>>Sincerely relax...lots of guys with guns on US airliners right now.
>
>Jeez Juvat, *that* really helped. I just had my wife read your
>response but I'm afraid your "RELAX.......LOTS OF GUYS WITH
>GUNS ON US AIRLINERS RIGHT NOW" failed to set her at ease,
> if ya' know what I mean.

Lemme see, your wife is one of those who doesn't like good guys with
guns around her, but ignores the fact that the bad guys with guns will
be there regardless?
>
>BTW, 'juvat" means what, no balls or glory or sumpthin like that?

"Fortes fortuna juvat"---Fortune favors the brave.

When used in conjunction with an F-4 type (or Vipers now) it refers to
someone from Kunsan Korea. The Juvats are well known as a fighter
squadron.
>
>>asked a couple flying with us on Monday, "Uhhh, it's shoot to kill
>>right?" They nodded.
>
>Fun fun fun!!! Shootout at the OK corral at FL340!

Well, if the choice is giving in to an asshole with a box cutter or
having a shootout at FL 340, what do you think is the better choice.
And, BTW, despite what you've seen in the movies, bulletholes in
pressurized cockpits don't result in structural failures or even rapid
decompressions.
>
>
>Please understand, "lots of guys with guns on airliners right now"
>sounds well and good to me, but I'm afraid you failed to reassure
>my poor wife that she's any safer by your response.

Maybe your wife needs to think through the problem.
>
>>Juvat
>
>Semper foo fi foe fum...

Don't ridicule Juvats or Marines. It's very poor taste.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Dudley Henriques]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 22:43:18 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 18:23:28 GMT, Mike Marron >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >>"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:
> >
> >> I don't have a clue what DH is alluding to.
> >
> >Basically, what I'm "alluding to" is that although there's no problem at
all
> >discussing security clearances in the generic sense as you have done
here;
> >if you personally have a security clearance, or even HAD a security
> >clearance, discussing that clearance, and anything associated with it's
> >relationship to you personally is bad juju! In fact, I would even go so
far
> >as to say with all due respect, that although the generic information you
> >gave is fine, I would not have included the fact that you personally had
a
> >clearance, even though the fact can be assumed. A quick call to any local
> >FBI office will I'm sure confirm this for you if you have any question
about
> >it.
> >Dudley Henriques
>
> Well, although you may have good reason for what you say, in my
> experience, both in the military and in industry, there was never any
> problem in the statement that one possessed a security clearance. In
> fact, in industry, your company ID badge displayed stars to quickly
> identify the level of your clearance. Two stars = secret, three stars
> = TS. And, your access to specific compartmentalized programs (i.e.
> "black") was displayed with a letter and number code in an "egg crate"
> at the bottom of your badge. It was easy to determine if someone had
> access to a program by looking at your badge and theirs--same numbers
> and in a cleared location, OK to discuss if they reasonably had "need
> to know".
>
> The FBI had nothing to do with security clearances for active duty
> military and AFAIK, nothing to do with industrial access which was
> handled by an NSA sub-office called "DISCO".
>
> Seriously, there's nothing magic about security clearances. The
> security issue is not who has one, but what is accessible after the
> fact. There is little to be gained in status by possession of a
> clearance and nothing to be added by ascribing some sort of "bad juju"
> to the system.

Depends entirely on the clearance.
I'm sorry to learn you feel this way. You are mistaken. It has nothing at
all to do with status or higharchy. People have been killed for security
identification. Speak on these things as you like Ed, but where I travel,
people don't discuss security issues......period...ESPECIALLY with the
country at war!! I'm sure I don't have to remind you that it's scraps of
information innocently put out here that can add up to just exactly the
scrap that's missing for someone.
I have no desire to discuss this issue any further and will not do so. If
and when we get back to everyone arguing about how many rivets there are in
each square foot of wing on the airplane, call me! :-)
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[Mike Marron]

>Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>>Mike Marron > wrote:
>>>Juvat > ("juvat" my ass) wrote:

>>>Sincerely relax...lots of guys with guns on US airliners right now.

>>Jeez Juvat, *that* really helped. I just had my wife read your
>>response but I'm afraid your "RELAX.......LOTS OF GUYS WITH
>>GUNS ON US AIRLINERS RIGHT NOW" failed to set her at ease,
>> if ya' know what I mean.

>Lemme see, your wife is one of those who doesn't like good guys with
>guns around her, but ignores the fact that the bad guys with guns will
>be there regardless?

She doesn't even THINK like that, Ed. Help me out here. Come up
with something other than, "...lots of guys with GUNS on airliners
right now." Thanks!

>>BTW, 'juvat" means what, no balls or glory or sumpthin like that?

>"Fortes fortuna juvat"---Fortune favors the brave.

Ouh Rah! (sp?)

>When used in conjunction with an F-4 type (or Vipers now) it refers to
>someone from Kunsan Korea. The Juvats are well known as a fighter
>squadron.

OK., But just who is this "Juvat" on RAM whose so obsessed with
"exhausting sessions" and "blurting out" and "Victoria's Secret?"

Nevermind Victoria's Secret (who ain't obsessed?) but you get my
drift, no?

>>>asked a couple flying with us on Monday, "Uhhh, it's shoot to kill
>>>right?" They nodded.

>>Fun fun fun!!! Shootout at the OK corral at FL340!

>Well, if the choice is giving in to an asshole with a box cutter or
>having a shootout at FL 340, what do you think is the better choice.

Agreed (again, it's my WIFE whose all worried -- not me).

>And, BTW, despite what you've seen in the movies, bulletholes in
>pressurized cockpits don't result in structural failures or even rapid
>decompressions.

Thank Gawd my poor wife just went to bed so she won't be having
any nightmares over any "bulletholes in pressurized cockpits!"

>>Please understand, "lots of guys with guns on airliners right now"
>>sounds well and good to me, but I'm afraid you failed to reassure
>>my poor wife that she's any safer by your response.

>Maybe your wife needs to think through the problem.

If Juvat told your wife that she's safe flying on airliners these
days due to "LOTS OF GUYS WITH GUNS ON US AIRLINERS
RIGHT NOW" would she think through the problem?

>>>Juvat

>>Semper foo fi foe fum...

>Don't ridicule Juvats or Marines. It's very poor taste.

Fresh Stone Crab, anyone?

>
>
>Ed Rasimus
>Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>"When Thunder Rolled"
>Smithsonian Institution Press
>ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Mary Shafer]

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 18:23:28 GMT, Mike Marron >
wrote:

> I've been following this thread with interest and was just curious as
> to exactly what constitutes a "security clearance." Can't you even
> provide us with a vague, thumbnail sketch of what a top secret
> security clearance is?

A clearance is a signed piece of paper allowing the named person to
access classified material, subject to a need to know. No more, no
less.

> With family flying down to visit over the holidays, my darling wife is
> all worried about their safety due to the raised threat-level from
> Arab terrorists. I can certainly understand why guys like you and Ed
> aren't interested in discussing the in's and out's of the security
> clearance mechanism, but again, since the topic was brought up
> can't either of you briefly explain what a security clearance is and
> why it's so important? Again, just asking and please pardon my
> ignorance.

A clearance is just what it sounds like, clearance to access
classified material. Why is it important? If you are being paid to
work on something classified, you can't do much if you can't even read
the documentation.

Granting a clearance includes conducting a background investigation,
which is what you're probably asking about. A background
investigation begins with the person filling out a form listing
education, employment, residences, and references. Employers and
schools are contacted to verify dates, references are interviewed, and
an assessment of the person's reliability at keeping classified
material classified is made. Based on this, the clearance is either
granted or refused.

What are some factors in granting or refusing a clearance? Whether
the person has any characteristics that might make the person subject
to pressure to reveal classified information is the main one. Being a
closeted homosexual leaves you open to blackmail, but being out of the
closet doesn't, for example. Also, whether the person might be
unstable, like being an alcoholic or the member of an odd sect
(religious or political) or carrying a grudge. Being in debt or
having too much money is something they ask about, too.

The whole investigation and report come down to whether it's a good
idea to trust the person to keep classified information classified.

Mary
--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Mary Shafer]

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 23:12:31 GMT, Ed Rasimus >
wrote:

> Well, although you may have good reason for what you say, in my
> experience, both in the military and in industry, there was never any
> problem in the statement that one possessed a security clearance. In
> fact, in industry, your company ID badge displayed stars to quickly
> identify the level of your clearance. Two stars = secret, three stars
> = TS.

NASA stopped doing that a while back. We used colored borders on the
badges, so we all had to get new badges without that information.

> And, your access to specific compartmentalized programs (i.e.
> "black") was displayed with a letter and number code in an "egg crate"
> at the bottom of your badge. It was easy to determine if someone had
> access to a program by looking at your badge and theirs--same numbers
> and in a cleared location, OK to discuss if they reasonably had "need
> to know".

NASA uses lists of people briefed onto programs (i.e. having the need
to know for that program), rather than putting it on the badge. We
used to use badge coding, with a little YF-12 planform indicating
access to Senior Crown, for example. We stopped doing that when we
stopped coding clearance levels. I think we were told to stop.

> Seriously, there's nothing magic about security clearances. The
> security issue is not who has one, but what is accessible after the
> fact. There is little to be gained in status by possession of a
> clearance and nothing to be added by ascribing some sort of "bad juju"
> to the system.

The status, such as there is, comes with the need to know, with being
cleared onto a program. Getting a clearance is a lot easier than
getting cleared onto a program.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Mike Marron]

>Mary Shafer > wrote:
>>Mike Marron > wrote:

>> I've been following this thread with interest and was just curious as
>> to exactly what constitutes a "security clearance." Can't you even
>> provide us with a vague, thumbnail sketch of what a top secret
>> security clearance is?

>A clearance is a signed piece of paper allowing the named person to
>access classified material, subject to a need to know. No more, no
>less.

>> With family flying down to visit over the holidays, my darling wife is
>> all worried about their safety due to the raised threat-level from
>> Arab terrorists. I can certainly understand why guys like you and Ed
>> aren't interested in discussing the in's and out's of the security
>> clearance mechanism, but again, since the topic was brought up
>> can't either of you briefly explain what a security clearance is and
>> why it's so important? Again, just asking and please pardon my
>> ignorance.

>A clearance is just what it sounds like, clearance to access
>classified material. Why is it important? If you are being paid to
>work on something classified, you can't do much if you can't even read
>the documentation.

>Granting a clearance includes conducting a background investigation,
>which is what you're probably asking about. A background
>investigation begins with the person filling out a form listing
>education, employment, residences, and references. Employers and
>schools are contacted to verify dates, references are interviewed, and
>an assessment of the person's reliability at keeping classified
>material classified is made. Based on this, the clearance is either
>granted or refused.

>What are some factors in granting or refusing a clearance? Whether
>the person has any characteristics that might make the person subject
>to pressure to reveal classified information is the main one. Being a
>closeted homosexual leaves you open to blackmail, but being out of the
>closet doesn't, for example. Also, whether the person might be
>unstable, like being an alcoholic or the member of an odd sect
>(religious or political) or carrying a grudge. Being in debt or
>having too much money is something they ask about, too.

>The whole investigation and report come down to whether it's a good
>idea to trust the person to keep classified information classified.

You;re the best, Mary. Thanks!

[Mary Shafer]

On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 01:28:26 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> wrote:

> If
> and when we get back to everyone arguing about how many rivets there are in
> each square foot of wing on the airplane, call me! :-)

Do we count the rivets down inside the wing, that got pulled out when
we spun the airplane, too?

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Dudley Henriques]

"Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 01:28:26 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> > wrote:
>
> > If
> > and when we get back to everyone arguing about how many rivets there are
in
> > each square foot of wing on the airplane, call me! :-)
>
> Do we count the rivets down inside the wing, that got pulled out when
> we spun the airplane, too?
>
> Mary

I used to know a guy who thought you hadn't over g'd an airplane unless you
broke it. He owned a Globe Swift. Cute little airplane; built like a
fighter. He actually thought it WAS a fighter the way he flew it.
Rolls....spins.....you name it! It was the Snap rolls that got him I
think.....multiple snap rolls at that!!
I never flew it, but I had to move it one afternoon to clear a parking space
for a Bearcat. I started it up and began to taxi it. There were noises
coming out of that thing that would have terrified a sane person, let alone
ME!! :-) After I parked it I tugged on the tips. It was flexing so bad
something HAD to be broken in there. Later we discovered the airplane had
two broken panels inside the wings. Most of the wing was stressed and
twisted; little bits and pieces of metal (AND a full pack of Lucky Strikes)
bouncing all around in there. To my knowledge, after we told him what we had
discovered, he never flew it again. I believe he junked it after he trucked
it off the field.

It's amazing what gets down inside an airplane isn't it? In the old AT6, if
you were giving dual and either the guy in front forgot and left the canopy
cracked open, or you forgot to tell him to close it, on takeoff, every bit
of junk that had accumulated under the floor rails was sucked up and blasted
you in the face :-)

We used to yank the inspection plates once in a while just to see what the
hell was in those dark foreboding places :-) It was sort of like when you
take the cushions off your old stuffed couch and find all sorts of goodies
buried in there.....loose change.......old stale popcorn........that blue
sock you lost five years ago.......and of course a stuffed animal or two!!!!
:-)))
Dudley

[[email protected]]

Ed Rasimus > wrote:

>
>Seriously, there's nothing magic about security clearances. The
>security issue is not who has one, but what is accessible after the
>fact. There is little to be gained in status by possession of a
>clearance and nothing to be added by ascribing some sort of "bad juju"
>to the system.
>
>Ed Rasimus

A cool breath of reason in this silly thread...this paragraph is
exactly correct. Everyone who ever flew (or sailed) in the
military ASW world (among many others) has (or has had) one, and
there are thousands.
--

-Gord.

[[email protected]]

Jim Yanik > wrote:

>Ed Rasimus > wrote in
:
>
>
>
>>
>> My point exactly. Security clearance and arming individuals are apples
>> and oranges.
>
>A security clearance is a form of TRUST,is it not? It says something about
>a person's character.
>
>Would an untrustworthy person be able to obtain a security clearance?

I don't think that it's much of a guarantee Jim. The cops do a
check on you, your reputation, your credit rating and stuff like
that but what can be told by that?...I suppose you'd be refused
if you were a real bad cat but then you'd likely have been in
poop by then in the military anyway. Can't speak about civilian
clearances though, I've only held military ones...oops wasn't
supposed to tell <snort>
--

-Gord.

[Juvat]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Jim Yanik
blurted out:

>It's a judgement about trustworthyness.If one can trust a military pilot
>with a security clearance(and to carry a gun while flying a military
>plane),why must they be psychologically tested AGAIN for being armed in a
>commercial plane?

Why? Don't have an answer.

>Especially when they already undergo regular psy testing
>to maintain their commercial flight status.

That is NOT the case in the US. For a fact there are (and have been)
airline pilots that have a habit of no getting along well with the
other pilot(s) in the cockpit. 12 years ago one former co-worker was
sent to the Mayo clinic after I removed myself from the trip (he was
an insecure little ****)...I was the 4th guy in less than six months
to get off a trip with him. The Mayo clinic shrink's report said, "Yep
he's an asshole." This guy kept his job for another 10 years after
repeated trips to the Mayo he was finally diagnosed with Post
Traumatic Stress Disorder...pffffttt...he's outta here finally.

Or how about the Captain that was a former police officer, this guy
picks fights at layover hotels if he thinks too much noise is coming
from adjoining rooms.

>If they are stable enough to pilot a plane full of passengers,why would
>they NOT be stable enough to carry a firearm? (on a commercial plane)

See my two examples above.

>Conversely,if a pilot is not judged stable enough to be armed while aboard
>a commercial plane,are they stable/reliable enough to perform the job of
>pilot if unarmed?
>
>Fail that extra psy-test,and there goes your livelihood.
>If not,please explain why.

Again we do not go through routine psych re-screening.

>The extra psy test is just a way of 1;scaring off interested pilots,2;an
>added obstruction solely for the purpose of limiting the number of FFDOs.

Some guys don't like guns. Some guys don't want to deal with the
hassles of securing their weapon in various circumstances. I have not
heard from a single guy that he was afraid of ANY psych screening.
Doesn't mean there aren't cases out there.

>Except there's not enough Sky Marshals to put even ONE on every daily US
>flight,not considering international flights.And standard practice is TWO
>Marshals per flight.Chances are better that a flight has NO Marshals
>aboard.

Think about it...not every single flight is a probable target. But
I've flown with lots of FAMs, especially if there are gentlemen of
arab persuasion on the flight. And now days LEOs (Law Enforcement
Officers) on vacation with their families are packing heat. As I
posted previously...lots of guys with guns on airplanes.

>BTW,I believe one is not supposed to be able to tell who the Marshals are
>on a flight.

"One" being a passenger...correct, "one" being a flight
crew...incorrect.

Juvat

[Juvat]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Mike
Marron blurted out:

>Jeez Juvat, *that* really helped. I just had my wife read your
>response but I'm afraid your "RELAX.......LOTS OF GUYS WITH
>GUNS ON US AIRLINERS RIGHT NOW" failed to set her at ease,
> if ya' know what I mean.

So if you suspected that your wife would become more unsettled about
travel due to my remarks...why upset her more? [shaking head
curiously] Tell her, that airline crews and FAMs are at a heightened
state of readiness. We are!

>>asked a couple flying with us on Monday, "Uhhh, it's shoot to kill
>>right?" They nodded.
>
>Fun fun fun!!! Shootout at the OK corral at FL340!

Given the options presented by those islamist ****s, what is YOUR
solution?

>Please understand, "lots of guys with guns on airliners right now"
>sounds well and good to me, but I'm afraid you failed to reassure
>my poor wife that she's any safer by your response.

Look, if your wife is offended by somebody writing ****, don't let her
read this. Filter my response for her.

Lots of folks are nervous fliers, I get it, I understand that. Lots of
folks are nervous about terrorists right now, I get that too.

Islamist ****s are out there "testing" the system, I know this
personally. You don't hear about it...but these ****s are getting
arrested when airplanes land.

Juvat

[Ed Rasimus]

On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 01:57:03 GMT, Mike Marron >
wrote:

>>Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>>>Mike Marron > wrote:
>>>>Juvat > ("juvat" my ass) wrote:
>
>>>>Sincerely relax...lots of guys with guns on US airliners right now.
>
>>>Jeez Juvat, *that* really helped. I just had my wife read your
>>>response but I'm afraid your "RELAX.......LOTS OF GUYS WITH
>>>GUNS ON US AIRLINERS RIGHT NOW" failed to set her at ease,
>>> if ya' know what I mean.
>
>>Lemme see, your wife is one of those who doesn't like good guys with
>>guns around her, but ignores the fact that the bad guys with guns will
>>be there regardless?
>
>She doesn't even THINK like that, Ed. Help me out here. Come up
>with something other than, "...lots of guys with GUNS on airliners
>right now." Thanks!

Well, I didn't say "lots of guys with GUNS...", Juvat did. But as
someone who has carried for the past twenty years (and had a CCW for
the last nine), I'm a strong believer that we are safer with more
honest citizens armed than in those communities that have strong gun
control laws--like NY City, Washington DC, Chicago, LA, etc.
>
>>>BTW, 'juvat" means what, no balls or glory or sumpthin like that?
>
>>"Fortes fortuna juvat"---Fortune favors the brave.
>
>Ouh Rah! (sp?)
>
>>When used in conjunction with an F-4 type (or Vipers now) it refers to
>>someone from Kunsan Korea. The Juvats are well known as a fighter
>>squadron.
>
>OK., But just who is this "Juvat" on RAM whose so obsessed with
>"exhausting sessions" and "blurting out" and "Victoria's Secret?"
>
>Nevermind Victoria's Secret (who ain't obsessed?) but you get my
>drift, no?

Actually no. The creative "you wrote" version as a quote leader
doesn't degrade the message any more than a creative sig. I'm not a
Juvat, but know a lot of them. It took me less than thirty seconds to
find what "juvat" means through Google.

Juvat on RAM is a former AF fighter type now flying with the airlines.
As such I (and you as well) have seen his posts regularly and should
recognize him as one of those who makes a meaningful contribution from
a position of experience.
>

>>>Please understand, "lots of guys with guns on airliners right now"
>>>sounds well and good to me, but I'm afraid you failed to reassure
>>>my poor wife that she's any safer by your response.
>
>>Maybe your wife needs to think through the problem.
>
>If Juvat told your wife that she's safe flying on airliners these
>days due to "LOTS OF GUYS WITH GUNS ON US AIRLINERS
>RIGHT NOW" would she think through the problem?

Actually, my wife knows a lot of Juvats, a lot of airline pilots, and
a lot of gun carriers. She has thought through the problem. She
understands it quite well. Why do you think she's been able to
tolerate me for the last thirty years?
>


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Jim Yanik]

Mike Marron > wrote in
:

>>Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>>>Mike Marron > wrote:
>>>>Juvat > ("juvat" my ass) wrote:
>
>>>>Sincerely relax...lots of guys with guns on US airliners right now.
>
>>>Jeez Juvat, *that* really helped. I just had my wife read your
>>>response but I'm afraid your "RELAX.......LOTS OF GUYS WITH
>>>GUNS ON US AIRLINERS RIGHT NOW" failed to set her at ease,
>>> if ya' know what I mean.
>
>>Lemme see, your wife is one of those who doesn't like good guys with
>>guns around her, but ignores the fact that the bad guys with guns will
>>be there regardless?
>
> She doesn't even THINK like that, Ed. Help me out here. Come up
> with something other than, "...lots of guys with GUNS on airliners
> right now." Thanks!


You could tell her that bad guys seldom strike where it's known that there
are good guys with guns. They prefer unarmed victims.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Mike Marron]

>Ed Rasimus > wrote:
>>Mike Marron > wrote:

>>Jeez Juvat, *that* really helped. I just had my wife read your
>>response but I'm afraid your "RELAX.......LOTS OF GUYS WITH
>>GUNS ON US AIRLINERS RIGHT NOW" failed to set her at ease,
>> if ya' know what I mean.

>Lemme see, your wife is one of those who doesn't like good guys with
>guns around her, but ignores the fact that the bad guys with guns will
>be there regardless?

>>She doesn't even THINK like that, Ed. Help me out here. Come up
>>with something other than, "...lots of guys with GUNS on airliners
>>right now." Thanks!

>Well, I didn't say "lots of guys with GUNS...", Juvat did. But as
>someone who has carried for the past twenty years (and had a CCW for
>the last nine), I'm a strong believer that we are safer with more
>honest citizens armed than in those communities that have strong gun
>control laws--like NY City, Washington DC, Chicago, LA, etc.

Point taken. Rather than get involved in a gun control debate, all I
will say is that as someone who was raised around guns (from BB
guns on up to 12-guage shotguns and big game rifes w/powerful
scopes) when the term "gun" is mentioned I think back to all the good
times *hunting.*

Now, whether we're any safer these days in the big cities due to
honest citizens like yourself packing heat is debatable. Suffice to
say that I would agree and support your position 1,000,000-percent,
but just watching nutcases like those adolescent punks in Colorado
(pre-Colombine) and also in places like Iraq, Somalia, etc. wildly
emptying their magazines into the air indicates that there is a lot to
be said for promulgating, and more importantly, ENFORCING strict
gun control laws as well.

>>BTW, 'juvat" means what, no balls or glory or sumpthin like that?

>"Fortes fortuna juvat"---Fortune favors the brave.

>>Ouh Rah! (sp?)

>When used in conjunction with an F-4 type (or Vipers now) it refers to
>someone from Kunsan Korea. The Juvats are well known as a fighter
>squadron.

>>OK., But just who is this "Juvat" on RAM whose so obsessed with
>>"exhausting sessions" and "blurting out" and "Victoria's Secret?"

>>Nevermind Victoria's Secret (who ain't obsessed?) but you get my
>>drift, no?

>Actually no. The creative "you wrote" version as a quote leader
>doesn't degrade the message any more than a creative sig. I'm not a
>Juvat, but know a lot of them. It took me less than thirty seconds to
>find what "juvat" means through Google.

>Juvat on RAM is a former AF fighter type now flying with the airlines.
>As such I (and you as well) have seen his posts regularly and should
>recognize him as one of those who makes a meaningful contribution from
>a position of experience.

Again, point taken. Don't take my admittedly playful responses to
Juvat seriously. For the most part, I figure one good turn deserves
another and was just being friendly -- yanking his chain a bit with
regards to his creative "Victoria's Secret" quote leader and his
interesting RAM "callsign."

>>Please understand, "lots of guys with guns on airliners right now"
>>sounds well and good to me, but I'm afraid you failed to reassure
>>my poor wife that she's any safer by your response.

>Maybe your wife needs to think through the problem.

>>If Juvat told your wife that she's safe flying on airliners these
>>days due to "LOTS OF GUYS WITH GUNS ON US AIRLINERS
>>RIGHT NOW" would she think through the problem?

>Actually, my wife knows a lot of Juvats, a lot of airline pilots, and
>a lot of gun carriers. She has thought through the problem. She
>understands it quite well. Why do you think she's been able to
>tolerate me for the last thirty years?

Heh. Guess ya' have to know my wife. Truth be known, she's really
not acting as paranoid about air travel as I'm making her out to be
here on this happy NG assembled. As an RN, she's pretty much
seen it all and she's also a very brave and patriotic woman. In fact,
it's Christmas day and she's at work right now saving lives and
stomping out disease as we speak! If she had a handgun and knew
how to use it, I think (I hope!) she wouldn't hesitate to pull it out
of her purse and use it on some asshole terrorist (Arab or otherwise)
while flying on an airliner.


>Ed Rasimus
>Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
>"When Thunder Rolled"
>Smithsonian Institution Press
>ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Mike Marron]

>Juvat > wrote:
>>After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police,
>>Mike Marron blurted out:

Heh.

>>Jeez Juvat, *that* really helped. I just had my wife read your
>>response but I'm afraid your "RELAX.......LOTS OF GUYS WITH
>>GUNS ON US AIRLINERS RIGHT NOW" failed to set her at ease,
>> if ya' know what I mean.

>So if you suspected that your wife would become more unsettled about
>travel due to my remarks...why upset her more? [shaking head
>curiously]

See my response to Ed (for the most part, I was just funnin' with ya).

>Tell her, that airline crews and FAMs are at a heightened state of readiness.
>We are!

And I respect and salute folks like you for safely transporting folks
like me and my loved ones around the country and across
vast continents via efficient "high-speed transportation." Thanks
again!

>>asked a couple flying with us on Monday, "Uhhh, it's shoot to kill
>>right?" They nodded.

>>Fun fun fun!!! Shootout at the OK corral at FL340!

>Given the options presented by those islamist ****s, what is YOUR
>solution?

Just don't forget to issue me one when I board, then. (I've never
fired a handgun, so I'll have a sawed-off shotgun please and thank
you! ;)

>>Please understand, "lots of guys with guns on airliners right now"
>>sounds well and good to me, but I'm afraid you failed to reassure
>>my poor wife that she's any safer by your response.

>Look, if your wife is offended by somebody writing ****, don't let her
>read this. Filter my response for her.

>Lots of folks are nervous fliers, I get it, I understand that. Lots of
>folks are nervous about terrorists right now, I get that too.

>Islamist ****s are out there "testing" the system, I know this
>personally. You don't hear about it...but these ****s are getting
>arrested when airplanes land.

Most excellent, thanks for the help, sir. Seriously.

>Juvat
^^^^^^^^

Salute!

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Ed Rasimus
> writes
>On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 01:03:54 GMT, Mike Marron >
>wrote:
>>Jeez Juvat, *that* really helped. I just had my wife read your
>>response but I'm afraid your "RELAX.......LOTS OF GUYS WITH
>>GUNS ON US AIRLINERS RIGHT NOW" failed to set her at ease,
>> if ya' know what I mean.
>
>Lemme see, your wife is one of those who doesn't like good guys with
>guns around her, but ignores the fact that the bad guys with guns will
>be there regardless?

Having been through a few passenger screenings for transatlantic flight
recently, how are "bad guys" meant to get aboard with available
firearms? If my belt buckle sets off the alarms then a handgun will do
so. (Please no foolishness about Glocks being 'undetectable', I owned
one and the frame is barium-filled plastic with metal inserts, the slide
solid steel - superb handguns but fully compliant with security
requirement)

(Agree with Mr Rasimus defending Juvat's choice of handle, by the way)

>>Fun fun fun!!! Shootout at the OK corral at FL340!
>
>Well, if the choice is giving in to an asshole with a box cutter or
>having a shootout at FL 340, what do you think is the better choice.

Fine, but where do I get _my_ firearms? I'm an honest citizen with
assorted clearances, military background, trusted with all sorts of
stuff. Why can't _I_ have a weapon to reassure me on the flight?

If someone tries to take over the aircraft with a craft knife, then I'm
willing to improvise an answer with my headphone cord (makes a handy
garotte and issued by the airline for every flight... or if I can't
trust that, my MP3 player's headphones will work) and the issue blanket
(lots of loose cloth to muffle a short-blade slash) and anything else I
can find to hand. The old days of "stay put, don't be noticed, don't
resist" are _gone_ and anyone trying to hijack an airliner these days is
going to be lucky to survive.

I'm not hostile to the idea of trusting others to protect me but I want
to be confident that they'll do a better job than I could. And while I'm
not an action movie hero, I've proved I'm a half-decent shot with rifle,
pistol, SMG, LMG, GPMG, rocket launcher, guided missile and called
indirect fire; so where do I apply for some armament?

Indeed, it strikes me that a logical approach to stealing an aircraft
with homicidal intent would be to get someone planted as a sky marshall
or pilot...

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Mary Shafer]

On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 19:15:58 GMT, Mike Marron >
wrote:

> Just don't forget to issue me one when I board, then. (I've never
> fired a handgun, so I'll have a sawed-off shotgun please and thank
> you! ;)

Not on my airplane, I hope. Nice tidy little bullets are one thing,
but a handful of shot is another entirely. Pressurization systems are
good, but there is a limit.

Or were you planning on loading those little supposedly-nonlethal bean
bags? I don't think I like that any better.

How about a flammenwerfer if you don't want a handgun?

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Mary Shafer]

On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 05:37:40 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> wrote:

> It's amazing what gets down inside an airplane isn't it? In the old AT6, if
> you were giving dual and either the guy in front forgot and left the canopy
> cracked open, or you forgot to tell him to close it, on takeoff, every bit
> of junk that had accumulated under the floor rails was sucked up and blasted
> you in the face :-)

Back in the dim recesses of time when we were flying the F-8 DFBW, we
had some Navy pilots come fly it as guest pilots. They uniformly
remarked in the post-flight on how clean the airplane was; they'd
rolled inverted and nothing had fallen onto the canopy. Apparently
operational planes get a little cluttered. Or maybe a lot cluttered,
according to stories I've heard.

Our ground crews would laugh and the project test pilot would say that
the guys didn't let the pilots make a mess. The cockpits were really
clean. I remember one of the mechanics stopping by to give one of the
pilots the crystal from his watch, which he'd lost the day before.

> We used to yank the inspection plates once in a while just to see what the
> hell was in those dark foreboding places :-) It was sort of like when you
> take the cushions off your old stuffed couch and find all sorts of goodies
> buried in there.....loose change.......old stale popcorn........that blue
> sock you lost five years ago.......and of course a stuffed animal or two!!!!

When I worked at McAir on the F-15, we had a snake find its way into a
cockpit and take a flight. I have always suspected that snake of
having help. (There was another snake that was flown deliberately, by
the way.) However, the kitten in the Navy trainer managed all by
itself, according to the article in last month's Approach.

Let's see if I can produce a reference:
<http://www.safetycenter.navy.mil/media/approach/issues/feb03/feline.htm>

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Jim Yanik
> writes
>Ed Rasimus > wrote in
:
>> My point exactly. Security clearance and arming individuals are apples
>> and oranges.
>
>A security clearance is a form of TRUST,is it not? It says something about
>a person's character.
>
>Would an untrustworthy person be able to obtain a security clearance?

A very few have, and have done a lot of damage as a result. The
clearance routine is good but not perfect.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Ed Rasimus
> writes
>On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 22:43:18 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
> wrote:
>>Basically, what I'm "alluding to" is that although there's no problem at all
>>discussing security clearances in the generic sense as you have done here;
>>if you personally have a security clearance, or even HAD a security
>>clearance, discussing that clearance, and anything associated with it's
>>relationship to you personally is bad juju!

>Well, although you may have good reason for what you say, in my
>experience, both in the military and in industry, there was never any
>problem in the statement that one possessed a security clearance. In
>fact, in industry, your company ID badge displayed stars to quickly
>identify the level of your clearance. Two stars = secret, three stars
>= TS.

Agree almost completely, though in my experience it's a colour code
rather than a star count to define clearance levels. Still simple easy
at-a-glance option of "is that person allowed in this area? Escorted?
Unescorted?"

>Seriously, there's nothing magic about security clearances. The
>security issue is not who has one, but what is accessible after the
>fact. There is little to be gained in status by possession of a
>clearance and nothing to be added by ascribing some sort of "bad juju"
>to the system.

I might be cleared to UK RESTRICTED (which isn't even recognised as
'classified' by the US, IIRC). I might be cleared to SECRET, or TOP
SECRET, or hold no clearance at all. Doesn't matter a damn - if I give
away classified information I'm eligible for a quick trip to and long
stay in jail, regardless of how cleared or not I was.

(FWIW I've got a cabinet full of SECRET stuff, but for this forum it's a
big 'so what'? I've also got good access to assorted unclassified
sources which is _much_ more useful)

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Juvat]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Mike
Marron blurted out:

>See my response to Ed (for the most part, I was just funnin' with ya).

No problem. No offense taken.

Juvat

[B2431]

>From: Mary Shafer
>Date: 12/25/2003 2:16 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 19:15:58 GMT, Mike Marron >
>wrote:
>
>> Just don't forget to issue me one when I board, then. (I've never
>> fired a handgun, so I'll have a sawed-off shotgun please and thank
>> you! ;)
>
>Not on my airplane, I hope. Nice tidy little bullets are one thing,
>but a handful of shot is another entirely. Pressurization systems are
>good, but there is a limit.
>
>Or were you planning on loading those little supposedly-nonlethal bean
>bags? I don't think I like that any better.
>
>How about a flammenwerfer if you don't want a handgun?
>
>Mary
>
>--
>Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

>
Mary, you have to think big. All airliners should have built in bombs. If
someone hijacks the airplane destroy it. Potential hijackers will get the hint.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[John R Weiss]

"Mary Shafer" > wrote...
>
> Not on my airplane, I hope. Nice tidy little bullets are one thing,
> but a handful of shot is another entirely. Pressurization systems are
> good, but there is a limit.

As in most things, "it depends"...

If you are thinking about a 10 or 12 gauge shotgun loaded with #4 buck or larger
in normal loads, you are probably right (though I haven't done or seen any
analysis). With "bird shot" (#7 or 8 lead), though, the trade-off would be the
close-range "column of shot" effect vs lesser penetration. Even with a cylinder
bore in a 18 1/2" or sawed-off (highly illegal in most cases) barrel, the shot
does not disperse significantly until some finite distance from the barrel.
Until then, the shot is effectively a .72 cal (for 12 gauge) slug with muzzle
energy of 2000-3000 ft-lb.

OTOH, a short .410 gauge shotgun will likely have less muzzle energy (650 ft-lb
typical for slugs) than a max .45 Colt (410-840 ft-lb -- using comparative
figures for a multi-purpose [.45 Colt/.410 shotshell] Thompson/Center Contender
handgun) or typical .44 magnum (1100-1600 ft-lb) load, and slightly more than a
..45 auto (350-530 ft-lb). A 16 or 20 gauge shotgun will, obviously, be
somewhere in between (1400-2000 ft-lb).

I suppose I would worry most about a short-range "clean miss" with a 12-gauge
and buckshot -- it would make a BIG hole. Also, I would worry about ANY miss
with ANY firearm -- the potential for injuring innocent passengers is high
(though more acceptable than crashing the airplane and killing everyone).
However, longer-range "misses" with smaller-size shot would be less likely to be
lethal or damage-producing, and may be stopped by a seat back or partition.

OTOOH, I have seen evaluations of shotshells in .357 and .45 Auto caliber in
handgun loads. They are much less effective than any solid bullet load against
clothed bodies.

[Juvat]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "John R
Weiss" blurted out:

>OTOH, a short .410 gauge shotgun will likely have less muzzle energy (650 ft-lb
>typical for slugs) than a max .45 Colt (410-840 ft-lb -- using comparative
>figures for a multi-purpose [.45 Colt/.410 shotshell] Thompson/Center Contender
>handgun) or typical .44 magnum (1100-1600 ft-lb) load, and slightly more than a
>.45 auto (350-530 ft-lb). A 16 or 20 gauge shotgun will, obviously, be
>somewhere in between (1400-2000 ft-lb).

What kind of numbers are you looking at with a H&K USP 40 Compact LEM?

Just curious...and out of pocket for five days.

Juvat

[Jim Yanik]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in
:

> In message >, Jim Yanik
> writes
>>Ed Rasimus > wrote in
:
>>> My point exactly. Security clearance and arming individuals are
>>> apples and oranges.
>>
>>A security clearance is a form of TRUST,is it not? It says something
>>about a person's character.
>>
>>Would an untrustworthy person be able to obtain a security clearance?
>
> A very few have, and have done a lot of damage as a result. The
> clearance routine is good but not perfect.
>

NO system is perfect.But because we cannot achieve perfection doesn't mean
we should do nothing.

Consider the 34 US states that allow concealed carry;the number of those
people who commit gun crimes or get their permits revoked due to gun misuse
are extremely low,fractions of one percent.They haven't gone mad and shot
up places.Vermont doesn't even require any permit,one can carry if they
wish.

Yet,people worry that pilots,many with former military service,might misuse
their weapons aboard a commercial flight.(but won't fly their plane into a
building)

IMO,they're missing the big picture.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Harry Andreas]

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

> In message >, Ed Rasimus
> > writes
> >On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 01:03:54 GMT, Mike Marron >
> >wrote:
> >>Jeez Juvat, *that* really helped. I just had my wife read your
> >>response but I'm afraid your "RELAX.......LOTS OF GUYS WITH
> >>GUNS ON US AIRLINERS RIGHT NOW" failed to set her at ease,
> >> if ya' know what I mean.
> >
> >Lemme see, your wife is one of those who doesn't like good guys with
> >guns around her, but ignores the fact that the bad guys with guns will
> >be there regardless?
>
> Having been through a few passenger screenings for transatlantic flight
> recently, how are "bad guys" meant to get aboard with available
> firearms? If my belt buckle sets off the alarms then a handgun will do
> so. (Please no foolishness about Glocks being 'undetectable', I owned
> one and the frame is barium-filled plastic with metal inserts, the slide
> solid steel - superb handguns but fully compliant with security
> requirement)

Barium filled ?

I own two, and I've never heard anything about Barium.

Can you provide a cite? I'm interested.

Harry Andreas
Engineering Raconteur

[B2431]

>From: "John R Weiss"

<snip>

With "bird shot" (#7 or 8 lead), though, the trade-off would bethe
>close-range "column of shot" effect vs lesser penetration. Even with a
>cylinder bore in a 18 1/2" or sawed-off (highly illegal in most cases) barrel,

>

Under federal law the minimum barrel lengths are 18" for shotguns and 16" for
rifles. I know of no state law that furthe restricts length.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: Juvat
>
>What kind of numbers are you looking at with a H&K USP 40 Compact LEM?
>
>Just curious...and out of pocket for five days.
>
>Juvat
>
The formula for kinetic energy is

K = ½mv²

where K = kinetic energy, m = mass of the bullet and v = velocity of the
bullet.

Bear in mind most people use muzzle velocity as opposed to impact velocity.

The actual damage done to a body also takes into account cross sectional area
of the bullet, trype of bullet and inertia.

One thing to consider when choosing bullet types is what the target might be
wearing. Winter clothes tend to clog the cavity of a hollow point and reduce or
eliminate expansion. High velocity solid bullets may go through the target and
hit something not intended. The latter is why Mag-Safe, Glaser Safety Slugs etc
are made.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[John Hairell]

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 20:34:30 -0800, Mary Shafer >
wrote:

>On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 23:12:31 GMT, Ed Rasimus >
>wrote:
>
>> Well, although you may have good reason for what you say, in my
>> experience, both in the military and in industry, there was never any
>> problem in the statement that one possessed a security clearance. In
>> fact, in industry, your company ID badge displayed stars to quickly
>> identify the level of your clearance. Two stars = secret, three stars
>> = TS.
>
>NASA stopped doing that a while back. We used colored borders on the
>badges, so we all had to get new badges without that information.

NASA may have stopped doing it where you worked but not where I work -
the guidelines aren't followed the same way all across the agency.

I's actually bad security form to identify clearance level via
color-coded badges, because it makes specific people identifiable to
hostile intelligence services. In many cases though the ease of
using color-coded badges overcomes the hassle of doing it in some
other way. Also, it's the first thing people think of when designing
badge systems, i.e. "Hey, why don't we use different colors to
designate access levels?".

>
>> And, your access to specific compartmentalized programs (i.e.
>> "black") was displayed with a letter and number code in an "egg crate"
>> at the bottom of your badge. It was easy to determine if someone had
>> access to a program by looking at your badge and theirs--same numbers
>> and in a cleared location, OK to discuss if they reasonably had "need
>> to know".
>
>NASA uses lists of people briefed onto programs (i.e. having the need
>to know for that program), rather than putting it on the badge. We
>used to use badge coding, with a little YF-12 planform indicating
>access to Senior Crown, for example. We stopped doing that when we
>stopped coding clearance levels. I think we were told to stop.
>

People who are cleared into compartmentalized systems should be known
to each other. Everybody else should be escorted, or challenged.
There are some places where the badges can only be worn within the
compartment and are never seen by anybody on the outside.

>> Seriously, there's nothing magic about security clearances. The
>> security issue is not who has one, but what is accessible after the
>> fact. There is little to be gained in status by possession of a
>> clearance and nothing to be added by ascribing some sort of "bad juju"
>> to the system.

Exactly, although possession of an active security clearance right now
can significantly add to your job prospects.

John Hairell )

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Jim Yanik
> writes
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in
:
>> A very few have, and have done a lot of damage as a result. The
>> clearance routine is good but not perfect.
>
>NO system is perfect.But because we cannot achieve perfection doesn't mean
>we should do nothing.
>
>Consider the 34 US states that allow concealed carry;the number of those
>people who commit gun crimes or get their permits revoked due to gun misuse
>are extremely low,fractions of one percent.They haven't gone mad and shot
>up places.Vermont doesn't even require any permit,one can carry if they
>wish.

Trouble is, the UK's firearm law is the shape it is because of two mass
homicides by permit-holding gun owners, without regard to the many
law-abiding folk like me who just liked blowing holes in paper with
like-minded people. Doesn't make it right, but that's democracy for you.

>Yet,people worry that pilots,many with former military service,might misuse
>their weapons aboard a commercial flight.(but won't fly their plane into a
>building)

I'm not particularly pro- or anti- armed pilots. There are significant
administrative issues (how do you secure the weapons between flights?
What happens when you fly to a country that doesn't recognise personal
carry?) but answers could be found: my main concern is that other more
effective measures for protecting the pilots and their aircraft get
ignored as too difficult or expensive, because "the pilots can be armed
so now there's no problem".

I don't see it as a hugely effective measure - you can't shoot well over
your shoulder while strapped into a seat - but I'm more worried about
airline pilots being drunk than armed :)


--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[John R Weiss]

"Juvat" > wrote...
>
> What kind of numbers are you looking at with a H&K USP 40 Compact LEM?

The .40 S&W has about 400-500 ft-lb muzzle energy.

[John R Weiss]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote...
>
> I'm not particularly pro- or anti- armed pilots. There are significant
> administrative issues (how do you secure the weapons between flights?

There have been several proposals addressed to the TSA, but they seem to have
adopted the WORST one of all (probably in their apparent continuing effort to
minimize the number of pilots who will be armed). They have adopted a method
PROHIBITED for Air Marshals and other Law Enforcement Officers (e.g., prisoner
escorts) aboard airplanes!


> my main concern is that other more
> effective measures for protecting the pilots and their aircraft get
> ignored as too difficult or expensive, because "the pilots can be armed
> so now there's no problem".

Those other measures, "more effective" or not, will continue to be "too
difficult or expensive" regardless of other measures adopted. The miniscule
number of armed pilots PLUS Air Marshals CANNOT make up for ANY other measures!
However, when the lives of several hundred passengers are at stake, "defense in
depth" is a reasonable measure.


> I don't see it as a hugely effective measure - you can't shoot well over
> your shoulder while strapped into a seat

That's why specific training has been developed... Besides, the range is VERY
short, so long-range accuracy is NOT a factor in that case.

[John R Weiss]

"B2431" > wrote...
>
>> Even with a
>>cylinder bore in a 18 1/2" or sawed-off (highly illegal in most cases) barrel,
>
> Under federal law the minimum barrel lengths are 18" for shotguns and 16" for
> rifles. I know of no state law that furthe restricts length.

That's why I tried to differentiate between a 18 1/2" (legal) and a sawed-off
(illegal) barrel. The OP mentioned "sawed-off," which would normally be illegal
in any case (don't know if they are legal under Class III regs).

[John R Weiss]

"B2431" > wrote...
>
> Bear in mind most people use muzzle velocity as opposed to impact velocity.

Though muzzle velocity/energy is appropriate in this discussion because of the
close ranges, hunters definitely consider down-range velocity (and accompanying
bullet drop) and energy!


> Winter clothes tend to clog the cavity of a hollow point and reduce or
> eliminate expansion. High velocity solid bullets may go through the target and
> hit something not intended. The latter is why Mag-Safe, Glaser Safety Slugs
etc
> are made.

That is one reason I answered the post regarding shotguns. At very close range,
the "column of shot" may closely resemble a "Safety Slug" in terminal
ballistics, especially with small shot.

[Chad Irby]

In article <Jb0Hb.141848$8y1.422519@attbi_s52>,
"John R Weiss" > wrote:

> That's why I tried to differentiate between a 18 1/2" (legal) and a
> sawed-off (illegal) barrel. The OP mentioned "sawed-off," which
> would normally be illegal in any case (don't know if they are legal
> under Class III regs).

That's a funny thing...

It's generally illegal to cut a normal shotgun down to a short barrel
length, but it *is* legal to manufacture a short-barreled shotgun and
sell it as an "All Other Weapons" Class III firearm, with a $5 tax
stamp. There are some *very* neat little three-shot 12 gauge shotguns
with 9" barrels out there (with a folding handle on the slide to help
control the little monster). Based on the Mossberg action. I've seen
them go for as little as $250 used on some gun auction sites.

They don't have as much punch as a regular 12 gauge, but hey, if you
have a Class III license, it's practically an impulse buy... and a
*serious* short-range low collateral-damage weapon.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[B2431]

>From: Chad Irby
>Date: 12/26/2003 2:57 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In article <Jb0Hb.141848$8y1.422519@attbi_s52>,
> "John R Weiss" > wrote:
>
>> That's why I tried to differentiate between a 18 1/2" (legal) and a
>> sawed-off (illegal) barrel. The OP mentioned "sawed-off," which
>> would normally be illegal in any case (don't know if they are legal
>> under Class III regs).
>
>That's a funny thing...
>
>It's generally illegal to cut a normal shotgun down to a short barrel
>length, but it *is* legal to manufacture a short-barreled shotgun and
>sell it as an "All Other Weapons" Class III firearm, with a $5 tax
>stamp. There are some *very* neat little three-shot 12 gauge shotguns
>with 9" barrels out there (with a folding handle on the slide to help
>control the little monster). Based on the Mossberg action. I've seen
>them go for as little as $250 used on some gun auction sites.
>
>They don't have as much punch as a regular 12 gauge, but hey, if you
>have a Class III license, it's practically an impulse buy... and a
>*serious* short-range low collateral-damage weapon.
>
>--
>cirby at cfl.rr.com
>

One of the problems with Title 2 weapons is transporting them across state
lines. You need prior approval from the feds and several states don't allow
them.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[No Spam!]

Paul J. Adam wrote:
> I'm not particularly pro- or anti- armed pilots. There are significant
> administrative issues (how do you secure the weapons between flights?
> What happens when you fly to a country that doesn't recognise personal
> carry?) but answers could be found: my main concern is that other more
> effective measures for protecting the pilots and their aircraft get
> ignored as too difficult or expensive, because "the pilots can be armed
> so now there's no problem".

I agree we should not consider any individual tactic as sufficient in
this case.

I suggest we need to implement defense in depth - which means placing an
entire series of obstacles, or defenses, between the terrorist and their
success. Too much reliance on any single defense will result in the
defense being neutralized or gone around. An entire series of defenses,
with new defenses being added as older ones are known to be compromised,
will result in making the terrorists task much, much more difficult -
which is about as good as you can hope for.

The final defense is, in this case, an armed pilot. Although it sounds
like the TSA is working to not let that happen as much as perhaps it
should. Are there questions and issues, and perhaps even problems? Yes,
as there are with any attempt. But as a passenger, I would feel safer
flying if I felt there was a higher chance of the cockpit crew being
armed than if I thought there was a smaller chance of it.

We might have stopped another try in Paris, but since apparently at
least one of the people we wanted to talk to (reportedly the one with a
pilot's license) was either warned off or for some other unknown reason
was a no-show means we might not get as much good intel out of the
botched try as we might have.

[Paul J. Adam]

In message <O10Hb.485370$275.1381929@attbi_s53>, John R Weiss
> writes
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote...
>> I don't see it as a hugely effective measure - you can't shoot well over
>> your shoulder while strapped into a seat
>
>That's why specific training has been developed... Besides, the range is VERY
>short, so long-range accuracy is NOT a factor in that case.

Odds are you'll be outnumbered if the Bad Guys have breached security
(if they can get one weapon aboard, why not a dozen or more?)

The idea that "armed pilots" are more than a backstop to other security
measures is romantic but foolish - pilots have much more important tasks
than threatening passengers, and of course Bad Guys would _never_ make
their move during times of high workload.

If the Bad Guys can get guns or knives aboard, they can get stun
grenades, CS grenades, cattle prods and assorted other means to subdue
two men strapped into seats. "Not Letting Them Throw Things Into
Cockpits Or Open Cockpit Doors" might be more important - but who cares
about expensive modifications to cockpit security, when the pilots could
be armed and will be asked and expected to handle every threat? (And can
be blamed for any failure?)

Maybe I'm a cynic.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[[email protected]]

"No Spam!" > wrote:
>
>We might have stopped another try in Paris, but since apparently at
>least one of the people we wanted to talk to (reportedly the one with a
>pilot's license) was either warned off or for some other unknown reason
>was a no-show means we might not get as much good intel out of the
>botched try as we might have.

This seems to argue for less safeguards so as to 'get better
intel' but I believe that the consequence of failing to quash a
hijack attempt is much too dangerous to take chances with
therefore we should do all in our power to prevent any attempt.

I'm also slightly against arming pilots because to endanger these
'Most Essential to Flight" units (pilots) in -any- way isn't
smart...we should put all effort into keeping miscreants out of
the cockpit. I just can't believe that a secure double door
system coupled with an iron clad -procedure- is that hard to
design or that expensive. Just imagine the cost to an airline of
one successful hijack, not just for the hardware, more than
likely that'd be mostly covered by insurance but imagine the cost
in missed revenue due to public apprehension.
--

-Gord.

[John R Weiss]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote...

> I'm also slightly against arming pilots because to endanger these
> 'Most Essential to Flight" units (pilots) in -any- way isn't
> smart...we should put all effort into keeping miscreants out of
> the cockpit.

Good in theory, but not necessarily foolproof in reality.


> I just can't believe that a secure double door
> system coupled with an iron clad -procedure- is that hard to
> design or that expensive.

The double door idea is obviously practicable, or else El Al wouldn't have them.
OTOH, US airlines are so driven by short-term profits and artificially low
ticket prices due to "competition" that none of them is willing to be first to
implement the "safest" measures.

Just as nobody could believe 9-11 could happen even once, nobody is willing to
admit it could happen again. Until then, we'll be saddled with partial
solutions.


> Just imagine the cost to an airline of
> one successful hijack, not just for the hardware, more than
> likely that'd be mostly covered by insurance but imagine the cost
> in missed revenue due to public apprehension.

So, if armed pilots thwart only ONE hijacking...

[[email protected]]

"John R Weiss" > wrote:

>"Gord Beaman" > wrote...
>
>> I'm also slightly against arming pilots because to endanger these
>> 'Most Essential to Flight" units (pilots) in -any- way isn't
>> smart...we should put all effort into keeping miscreants out of
>> the cockpit.
>
>Good in theory, but not necessarily foolproof in reality.
>
>
>> I just can't believe that a secure double door
>> system coupled with an iron clad -procedure- is that hard to
>> design or that expensive.
>
>The double door idea is obviously practicable, or else El Al wouldn't have them.
>OTOH, US airlines are so driven by short-term profits and artificially low
>ticket prices due to "competition" that none of them is willing to be first to
>implement the "safest" measures.
>
>Just as nobody could believe 9-11 could happen even once, nobody is willing to
>admit it could happen again. Until then, we'll be saddled with partial
>solutions.
>
>
>> Just imagine the cost to an airline of
>> one successful hijack, not just for the hardware, more than
>> likely that'd be mostly covered by insurance but imagine the cost
>> in missed revenue due to public apprehension.
>
>So, if armed pilots thwart only ONE hijacking...

Quite true BUT. I worry about endangering those 'essential to
flight units'. Think of the ever present danger of a loaded
pistol in the comparatively small confines of an airliner cockpit
for years and years, while a steel door (or two) is fairly
innocuous. Also, as a matter of curiosity, what would you expect
to happen if a 9MM or so slug were to go through one of the
windscreens?. Aren't most glass and plastic laminated? (NESA?)

We hit three seagulls just at rotate with a C-119 once and it
caused somewhat of a kerfluffle for awhile. Smashed out the
pilot's windscreen, cockpit was filled with flying pieces of
glass and plexiglass, gull-guts, gull-feathers, gull-****,
gull-bits, gull-drumsticks and other bits and sods.

Also the biggest, most sudden freaking windblast full of dust and
flotsam from years of use. Pilot had a weak stomach and he added
to the fun by barfing into that windblast and distributing his
half digested dinner to us. Cojo did a good job of getting us
around an abbreviated circuit and on the deck...

That friggin a/c stank for a couple of years after that...gull
guts are nasty.
--

-Gord.

[Mike Marron]

> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

>The idea that "armed pilots" are more than a backstop to other security
>measures is romantic but foolish - pilots have much more important tasks
>than threatening passengers, and of course Bad Guys would _never_ make
>their move during times of high workload.

You bring up some compelling points. I'm curious as to exactly how
an airline pilot, effectively walled-off from intruders by bulletproof
cockpit doors, is able to bring his weapon to bear against the bad
guys. Are there holes or slits in the cockpit doors (ala a Brinks or
Wells Fargo truck) to allow the pilots to poke their gun barrels
through so as to aim with precision while shooting back at the bad
guys?

[Jim Yanik]

"Gord Beaman" ) wrote in
:

> "No Spam!" > wrote:
>>
>>We might have stopped another try in Paris, but since apparently at
>>least one of the people we wanted to talk to (reportedly the one with a
>>pilot's license) was either warned off or for some other unknown reason
>>was a no-show means we might not get as much good intel out of the
>>botched try as we might have.
>
> This seems to argue for less safeguards so as to 'get better
> intel' but I believe that the consequence of failing to quash a
> hijack attempt is much too dangerous to take chances with
> therefore we should do all in our power to prevent any attempt.
>
> I'm also slightly against arming pilots because to endanger these
> 'Most Essential to Flight" units (pilots) in -any- way isn't
> smart...

well,if there's any hijack attempt,their lives already ARE in danger.
We learned that on 9-11-01.


we should put all effort into keeping miscreants out of
> the cockpit. I just can't believe that a secure double door
> system coupled with an iron clad -procedure- is that hard to
> design or that expensive. Just imagine the cost to an airline of
> one successful hijack, not just for the hardware, more than
> likely that'd be mostly covered by insurance but imagine the cost
> in missed revenue due to public apprehension.
> --
>
> -Gord.


There's no room for a "double door" on many aircraft,and cockpit doors get
opened for food or toilet breaks,or other reasons.And there's still the
chance of an 'inside job',someone who could open the door for hijackers,or
tamper with it.I note that in AvLeak,someone reported a "reinforced"
cockpit door being knocked open with a beverage cart.

And the cost to arm a pilot is minimal,yet very effective,and COULD be
implemented almost immediately,in much less time than to reengineer cockpit
doors.One day's training would suffice,IMO.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Jim Yanik]

"Gord Beaman" ) wrote in
:

> "John R Weiss" > wrote:
>
>>"Gord Beaman" > wrote...
>>
>>> I'm also slightly against arming pilots because to endanger these
>>> 'Most Essential to Flight" units (pilots) in -any- way isn't
>>> smart...we should put all effort into keeping miscreants out of
>>> the cockpit.
>>
>>Good in theory, but not necessarily foolproof in reality.
>>
>>
>>> I just can't believe that a secure double door
>>> system coupled with an iron clad -procedure- is that hard to
>>> design or that expensive.
>>
>>The double door idea is obviously practicable, or else El Al wouldn't
>>have them. OTOH, US airlines are so driven by short-term profits and
>>artificially low ticket prices due to "competition" that none of them
>>is willing to be first to implement the "safest" measures.
>>
>>Just as nobody could believe 9-11 could happen even once, nobody is
>>willing to admit it could happen again. Until then, we'll be saddled
>>with partial solutions.
>>
>>
>>> Just imagine the cost to an airline of
>>> one successful hijack, not just for the hardware, more than
>>> likely that'd be mostly covered by insurance but imagine the cost
>>> in missed revenue due to public apprehension.
>>
>>So, if armed pilots thwart only ONE hijacking...
>
> Quite true BUT. I worry about endangering those 'essential to
> flight units'. Think of the ever present danger of a loaded
> pistol in the comparatively small confines of an airliner cockpit
> for years and years,

What's years and years got to do with anything? Guns and ammo can be stored
for many years without problems.Any military does it constantly.
Guns don't fire on their own,it takes a PERSON to mishandle one.
And something like 70% of those pilots are ex-military pilots,so they
already have experience with guns.
The "ever-present danger" is only in your own mind.


while a steel door (or two) is fairly
> innocuous. Also, as a matter of curiosity, what would you expect
> to happen if a 9MM or so slug were to go through one of the
> windscreens?. Aren't most glass and plastic laminated? (NESA?)

Why would the pilots be firing FORWARD,when the hijackers would be coming
from REARWARDS?




--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Dudley Henriques]

"Jim Yanik" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Gord Beaman" ) wrote in
> :
>
> > "No Spam!" > wrote:
> >>
> >>We might have stopped another try in Paris, but since apparently at
> >>least one of the people we wanted to talk to (reportedly the one with a
> >>pilot's license) was either warned off or for some other unknown reason
> >>was a no-show means we might not get as much good intel out of the
> >>botched try as we might have.
> >
> > This seems to argue for less safeguards so as to 'get better
> > intel' but I believe that the consequence of failing to quash a
> > hijack attempt is much too dangerous to take chances with
> > therefore we should do all in our power to prevent any attempt.
> >
> > I'm also slightly against arming pilots because to endanger these
> > 'Most Essential to Flight" units (pilots) in -any- way isn't
> > smart...
>
> well,if there's any hijack attempt,their lives already ARE in danger.
> We learned that on 9-11-01.
>
>
> we should put all effort into keeping miscreants out of
> > the cockpit. I just can't believe that a secure double door
> > system coupled with an iron clad -procedure- is that hard to
> > design or that expensive. Just imagine the cost to an airline of
> > one successful hijack, not just for the hardware, more than
> > likely that'd be mostly covered by insurance but imagine the cost
> > in missed revenue due to public apprehension.
> > --
> >
> > -Gord.
>
>
> There's no room for a "double door" on many aircraft,and cockpit doors get
> opened for food or toilet breaks,or other reasons.And there's still the
> chance of an 'inside job',someone who could open the door for hijackers,or
> tamper with it.I note that in AvLeak,someone reported a "reinforced"
> cockpit door being knocked open with a beverage cart.
>
> And the cost to arm a pilot is minimal,yet very effective,and COULD be
> implemented almost immediately,in much less time than to reengineer
cockpit
> doors.One day's training would suffice,IMO.
> --
> Jim Yanik
> jyanik-at-kua.net

One factor about this issue that's not instantly apparent in all this
discussion about arming or not arming pilots is the fact that armed pilots
change the hijack model before the fact; in the planning stage!
Anyone contemplating a hijacking would have to factor in to their
operational equation the fact that the pilots are armed. This changes the
whole model for a projected hijacking.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[Jim Yanik]

Mike Marron > wrote in
:

>> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
>
>>The idea that "armed pilots" are more than a backstop to other security
>>measures is romantic but foolish - pilots have much more important tasks
>>than threatening passengers, and of course Bad Guys would _never_ make
>>their move during times of high workload.
>
> You bring up some compelling points. I'm curious as to exactly how
> an airline pilot, effectively walled-off from intruders by bulletproof
> cockpit doors, is able to bring his weapon to bear against the bad
> guys. Are there holes or slits in the cockpit doors (ala a Brinks or
> Wells Fargo truck) to allow the pilots to poke their gun barrels
> through so as to aim with precision while shooting back at the bad
> guys?
>


Perhaps the guns are menat to be used *only* if the cockpit door is
breached?? In AvLeak,someone mentioned how cabin cleaners used a beverage
cart to knock a reinforced door off it's hinges.

It's also my understanding that the pilots are NOT to leave the cockpit
with their gun,that it IS only for the event of a breach.Until the door is
breached,the pilots first job is to land the aircraft at the closest field
available.Besides,they probably would be banking and changing pitch to make
it difficult to stand for unseated persons.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Brian Colwell]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Jim Yanik" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > "Gord Beaman" ) wrote in
> > :
> >
> > > "No Spam!" > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>We might have stopped another try in Paris, but since apparently at
> > >>least one of the people we wanted to talk to (reportedly the one with
a
> > >>pilot's license) was either warned off or for some other unknown
reason
> > >>was a no-show means we might not get as much good intel out of the
> > >>botched try as we might have.
> > >
> > > This seems to argue for less safeguards so as to 'get better
> > > intel' but I believe that the consequence of failing to quash a
> > > hijack attempt is much too dangerous to take chances with
> > > therefore we should do all in our power to prevent any attempt.
> > >
> > > I'm also slightly against arming pilots because to endanger these
> > > 'Most Essential to Flight" units (pilots) in -any- way isn't
> > > smart...
> >
> > well,if there's any hijack attempt,their lives already ARE in danger.
> > We learned that on 9-11-01.
> >
> >
> > we should put all effort into keeping miscreants out of
> > > the cockpit. I just can't believe that a secure double door
> > > system coupled with an iron clad -procedure- is that hard to
> > > design or that expensive. Just imagine the cost to an airline of
> > > one successful hijack, not just for the hardware, more than
> > > likely that'd be mostly covered by insurance but imagine the cost
> > > in missed revenue due to public apprehension.
> > > --
> > >
> > > -Gord.
> >
> >
> > There's no room for a "double door" on many aircraft,and cockpit doors
get
> > opened for food or toilet breaks,or other reasons.And there's still the
> > chance of an 'inside job',someone who could open the door for
hijackers,or
> > tamper with it.I note that in AvLeak,someone reported a "reinforced"
> > cockpit door being knocked open with a beverage cart.
> >
> > And the cost to arm a pilot is minimal,yet very effective,and COULD be
> > implemented almost immediately,in much less time than to reengineer
> cockpit
> > doors.One day's training would suffice,IMO.
> > --
> > Jim Yanik
> > jyanik-at-kua.net
>
> One factor about this issue that's not instantly apparent in all this
> discussion about arming or not arming pilots is the fact that armed pilots
> change the hijack model before the fact; in the planning stage!
> Anyone contemplating a hijacking would have to factor in to their
> operational equation the fact that the pilots are armed. This changes the
> whole model for a projected hijacking.
> Dudley Henriques
> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
> For personal email, please replace
> the z's with e's.
> dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
>

I would suggest, in the event of an attempted hijacking, the days of the
passengers sitting passively by, have long gone by !!! There is no
alternative than to take some kind of action, regardless.

BMC

[Peter Kemp]

On or about Sat, 27 Dec 2003 21:02:32 GMT, "Brian Colwell"
> allegedly uttered:

>I would suggest, in the event of an attempted hijacking, the days of the
>passengers sitting passively by, have long gone by !!! There is no
>alternative than to take some kind of action, regardless.

Too right. Short of holding serious firepower, the scenario I envisage
is.......

"Everyone shut up! This is a hijacking! Do what we say and.....oh God
no, please stop it.........aaargh" followed by wet slurpy sounds as he
is kicked into a gooey paste by the passengers. I'd like to think I'd
be one of the first out of my seat going for his kneecaps and balls,
but hopefully I'll never have to find out, and neither will anyone
else.

---
Peter Kemp

Life is short - Drink Faster

[Dudley Henriques]

"Brian Colwell" > wrote in message
news:IrmHb.853153$9l5.589270@pd7tw2no...
>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> >
> > "Jim Yanik" > wrote in message
> > .. .
> > > "Gord Beaman" ) wrote in
> > > :
> > >
> > > > "No Spam!" > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>We might have stopped another try in Paris, but since apparently at
> > > >>least one of the people we wanted to talk to (reportedly the one
with
> a
> > > >>pilot's license) was either warned off or for some other unknown
> reason
> > > >>was a no-show means we might not get as much good intel out of the
> > > >>botched try as we might have.
> > > >
> > > > This seems to argue for less safeguards so as to 'get better
> > > > intel' but I believe that the consequence of failing to quash a
> > > > hijack attempt is much too dangerous to take chances with
> > > > therefore we should do all in our power to prevent any attempt.
> > > >
> > > > I'm also slightly against arming pilots because to endanger these
> > > > 'Most Essential to Flight" units (pilots) in -any- way isn't
> > > > smart...
> > >
> > > well,if there's any hijack attempt,their lives already ARE in danger.
> > > We learned that on 9-11-01.
> > >
> > >
> > > we should put all effort into keeping miscreants out of
> > > > the cockpit. I just can't believe that a secure double door
> > > > system coupled with an iron clad -procedure- is that hard to
> > > > design or that expensive. Just imagine the cost to an airline of
> > > > one successful hijack, not just for the hardware, more than
> > > > likely that'd be mostly covered by insurance but imagine the cost
> > > > in missed revenue due to public apprehension.
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > -Gord.
> > >
> > >
> > > There's no room for a "double door" on many aircraft,and cockpit doors
> get
> > > opened for food or toilet breaks,or other reasons.And there's still
the
> > > chance of an 'inside job',someone who could open the door for
> hijackers,or
> > > tamper with it.I note that in AvLeak,someone reported a "reinforced"
> > > cockpit door being knocked open with a beverage cart.
> > >
> > > And the cost to arm a pilot is minimal,yet very effective,and COULD be
> > > implemented almost immediately,in much less time than to reengineer
> > cockpit
> > > doors.One day's training would suffice,IMO.
> > > --
> > > Jim Yanik
> > > jyanik-at-kua.net
> >
> > One factor about this issue that's not instantly apparent in all this
> > discussion about arming or not arming pilots is the fact that armed
pilots
> > change the hijack model before the fact; in the planning stage!
> > Anyone contemplating a hijacking would have to factor in to their
> > operational equation the fact that the pilots are armed. This changes
the
> > whole model for a projected hijacking.
> > Dudley Henriques
> > International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> > Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
> > For personal email, please replace
> > the z's with e's.
> > dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
> >
>
> I would suggest, in the event of an attempted hijacking, the days of the
> passengers sitting passively by, have long gone by !!! There is no
> alternative than to take some kind of action, regardless.
>
> BMC
From what I'm hearing in the airline pilot community, this is the current
thinking out there. Much concentration is going into a focus on large long
range cargo flights because of exactly this scenario.
I can not envision a situation after 9-11 where the pax just sit there and
allow the aircraft to be taken by people with anything less than guns. The
current thinking seems to be that airport security, as bad as it is, will
catch the guns and explosives, leaving nothing but smuggled hand weapons
like the ones used before as on board options for the hijackers. I sure hope
this is right! You never know about these things. They do a model on every
conceivable scenario; then it;s the one they missed that is executed.
I'm also hearing that it will be an on course target rather than an off
course target that's chosen, since a transponder hit by center or any course
deviation from filed past a specific parameter will trigger a fighter
rolling off the alert pads.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[Jim Yanik]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in
nk.net:



>>
>> I would suggest, in the event of an attempted hijacking, the days of
>> the passengers sitting passively by, have long gone by !!! There is
>> no alternative than to take some kind of action, regardless.
>>
>> BMC
> From what I'm hearing in the airline pilot community, this is the
> current
> thinking out there. Much concentration is going into a focus on large
> long range cargo flights because of exactly this scenario.
> I can not envision a situation after 9-11 where the pax just sit there
> and allow the aircraft to be taken by people with anything less than
> guns. The current thinking seems to be that airport security, as bad
> as it is, will catch the guns and explosives, leaving nothing but
> smuggled hand weapons like the ones used before as on board options
> for the hijackers. I sure hope this is right! You never know about
> these things. They do a model on every conceivable scenario; then it;s
> the one they missed that is executed. I'm also hearing that it will be
> an on course target rather than an off course target that's chosen,
> since a transponder hit by center or any course deviation from filed
> past a specific parameter will trigger a fighter rolling off the alert
> pads. Dudley Henriques
> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
> For personal email, please replace
> the z's with e's.
> dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
>
>
>

Well,to date,I've read about two separate persons bringing handguns aboard
commercial flights undetected,and one incident of a Federally licensed
gov't employee leaving their loaded handgun on their seat when they
deplaned(discovered by another honest passenger).
Then there was the guy who air-freighted himself cross-country.(that's a
doozy!)

And cargo flights will not have the passengers to fight off a hijack
attempt.


But people think that having armed pilots is too big a hazard to risk.
They'll trust -anything- except that.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
Jim Yanik > wrote:

> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in
> nk.net:
>
>
>
> >>
> >> I would suggest, in the event of an attempted hijacking, the days of
> >> the passengers sitting passively by, have long gone by !!! There is
> >> no alternative than to take some kind of action, regardless.
> >>
> >> BMC
> > From what I'm hearing in the airline pilot community, this is the
> > current
> > thinking out there. Much concentration is going into a focus on large
> > long range cargo flights because of exactly this scenario.
> > I can not envision a situation after 9-11 where the pax just sit there
> > and allow the aircraft to be taken by people with anything less than
> > guns. The current thinking seems to be that airport security, as bad
> > as it is, will catch the guns and explosives, leaving nothing but
> > smuggled hand weapons like the ones used before as on board options
> > for the hijackers. I sure hope this is right! You never know about
> > these things. They do a model on every conceivable scenario; then it;s
> > the one they missed that is executed. I'm also hearing that it will be
> > an on course target rather than an off course target that's chosen,
> > since a transponder hit by center or any course deviation from filed
> > past a specific parameter will trigger a fighter rolling off the alert
> > pads. Dudley Henriques
> > International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> > Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
> > For personal email, please replace
> > the z's with e's.
> > dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
> >
> >
> >
>
> Well,to date,I've read about two separate persons bringing handguns aboard
> commercial flights undetected,and one incident of a Federally licensed
> gov't employee leaving their loaded handgun on their seat when they
> deplaned(discovered by another honest passenger).
> Then there was the guy who air-freighted himself cross-country.(that's a
> doozy!)
>
> And cargo flights will not have the passengers to fight off a hijack
> attempt.
>
>
> But people think that having armed pilots is too big a hazard to risk.
> They'll trust -anything- except that.


The flight deck crews DO have a weapon -- the fire axe. I know a number
of captains who would be willing to give a splitting headache to the
first hijacker attempting to come through the door.

[Dudley Henriques]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Jim Yanik > wrote:
>
> > "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in
> > nk.net:
> >
> >
> >
> > >>
> > >> I would suggest, in the event of an attempted hijacking, the days of
> > >> the passengers sitting passively by, have long gone by !!! There is
> > >> no alternative than to take some kind of action, regardless.
> > >>
> > >> BMC
> > > From what I'm hearing in the airline pilot community, this is the
> > > current
> > > thinking out there. Much concentration is going into a focus on large
> > > long range cargo flights because of exactly this scenario.
> > > I can not envision a situation after 9-11 where the pax just sit there
> > > and allow the aircraft to be taken by people with anything less than
> > > guns. The current thinking seems to be that airport security, as bad
> > > as it is, will catch the guns and explosives, leaving nothing but
> > > smuggled hand weapons like the ones used before as on board options
> > > for the hijackers. I sure hope this is right! You never know about
> > > these things. They do a model on every conceivable scenario; then it;s
> > > the one they missed that is executed. I'm also hearing that it will be
> > > an on course target rather than an off course target that's chosen,
> > > since a transponder hit by center or any course deviation from filed
> > > past a specific parameter will trigger a fighter rolling off the alert
> > > pads. Dudley Henriques
> > > International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> > > Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
> > > For personal email, please replace
> > > the z's with e's.
> > > dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Well,to date,I've read about two separate persons bringing handguns
aboard
> > commercial flights undetected,and one incident of a Federally licensed
> > gov't employee leaving their loaded handgun on their seat when they
> > deplaned(discovered by another honest passenger).
> > Then there was the guy who air-freighted himself cross-country.(that's a
> > doozy!)
> >
> > And cargo flights will not have the passengers to fight off a hijack
> > attempt.
> >
> >
> > But people think that having armed pilots is too big a hazard to risk.
> > They'll trust -anything- except that.
>
>
> The flight deck crews DO have a weapon -- the fire axe. I know a number
> of captains who would be willing to give a splitting headache to the
> first hijacker attempting to come through the door.

Hi Orval;

Yes, it's going to be interesting watching how all this goes down when the
dust settles. The gun lobby is out in force; the pilots are split, although
many of those I know personally are in favor of guns in the cockpit....a few
have issues with it. There's no doubt that having the guns changes the
hijack model for the bad guys.
Many of the pilots I'm talking to every day tell me that they feel FedEx and
UPS are prime targets. Many agree that the pax will never allow a takeover
again, but will fight back.
It's true that airport security leaves a lot to be desired, but it's in
place and working anyway, and as such is a huge detriment. I'm still worried
about the inbound overseas flights with prime targets beneath their flight
plans. This could end up being a real problem.
The bottom line I'm getting is an overall feeling that things are being
done, but that there are holes in the dyke that are leaving everybody with
an uneasy feeling, but with the odds in our favor.
This terrorist crap is always going to be a crap shoot! I don't think we'll
ever be 100% safe as long as these guys are out there and in operation. The
one outstanding factor that has to be addressed is that there are simply too
many targets and too little resources to protect them. The random checks
we're doing now are a detriment for sure, but something could slip through,
and if we get nailed again, all hell is going to break loose in the world.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

[Mike Marron]

>"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:


>I'm also hearing that it will be an on course target rather than an off
>course target that's chosen, since a transponder hit by center or any course
>deviation from filed past a specific parameter will trigger a fighter
>rolling off the alert pads.

Did I mention the time "Shark XXX" (an F-15) passed in front of me
from "left to right" in the Miami area (near the Turkey Point nuke
power station). This was just several days following 9/11 and the
whole country had gone absolutely berkshire just like it has now.
I was flying a Cessna 210 cruising at about 4,000-5,000 ft.

The "Let's Roll" scenario Part II ain't good enough.

[B2431]

>From: "Dudley Henriques"

>The bottom line I'm getting is an overall feeling that things are being
>done, but that there are holes in the dyke that are leaving everybody with
>an uneasy feeling,

Un, a dike is a dam and a dyke...um....well <g>

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Jim Yanik]

I saw on CNN online today that UK is going to have armed Sky Marshals on
British flights in the US,beginning with their international flights.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article .net>,
"Dudley Henriques" > wrote:

> "Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > Jim Yanik > wrote:
> >
> > > "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in
> > > nk.net:
> > >
.............
> > > Well,to date,I've read about two separate persons bringing handguns
> aboard
> > > commercial flights undetected,and one incident of a Federally licensed
> > > gov't employee leaving their loaded handgun on their seat when they
> > > deplaned(discovered by another honest passenger).
> > > Then there was the guy who air-freighted himself cross-country.(that's a
> > > doozy!)
> > >
> > > And cargo flights will not have the passengers to fight off a hijack
> > > attempt.
> > >
> > >
> > > But people think that having armed pilots is too big a hazard to risk.
> > > They'll trust -anything- except that.
> >
> >
> > The flight deck crews DO have a weapon -- the fire axe. I know a number
> > of captains who would be willing to give a splitting headache to the
> > first hijacker attempting to come through the door.
>
> Hi Orval;
>
> Yes, it's going to be interesting watching how all this goes down when the
> dust settles. The gun lobby is out in force; the pilots are split, although
> many of those I know personally are in favor of guns in the cockpit....a few
> have issues with it. There's no doubt that having the guns changes the
> hijack model for the bad guys.
> Many of the pilots I'm talking to every day tell me that they feel FedEx and
> UPS are prime targets. Many agree that the pax will never allow a takeover
> again, but will fight back.
> It's true that airport security leaves a lot to be desired, but it's in
> place and working anyway, and as such is a huge detriment. I'm still worried
> about the inbound overseas flights with prime targets beneath their flight
> plans. This could end up being a real problem.
> The bottom line I'm getting is an overall feeling that things are being
> done, but that there are holes in the dyke that are leaving everybody with
> an uneasy feeling, but with the odds in our favor.
> This terrorist crap is always going to be a crap shoot! I don't think we'll
> ever be 100% safe as long as these guys are out there and in operation. The
> one outstanding factor that has to be addressed is that there are simply too
> many targets and too little resources to protect them. The random checks
> we're doing now are a detriment for sure, but something could slip through,
> and if we get nailed again, all hell is going to break loose in the world.
> Dudley Henriques
> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
> For personal email, please replace
> the z's with e's.
> dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt
>
>

Unfortunately, I agree with Dudley. Hijacking an international flight
over the ocean prevents the cellphone remedy (a la UA 93) and prevents
most (except satellite) communications with the ground. Air cargo is
another prime target, as there is usually only the crew to deal with.

It would not surprise me if they were to target a major bowl game full
of spectators (80000 to 120000 people) (shudder).

Did anybody happen to watch the stupid episode of "Threat Matrix," where
the bad guys stole a cargo plane in Africa and painted it up like a
legitimate cargo plane? The wholw scenario fell apart when they didn't
divert both the legit and the bad guy's planes to a safe airport.

[Dudley Henriques]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Dudley Henriques"
>
> >The bottom line I'm getting is an overall feeling that things are being
> >done, but that there are holes in the dyke that are leaving everybody
with
> >an uneasy feeling,
>
> Un, a dike is a dam and a dyke...um....well <g>
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Well,to be technically correct,,,,,,,,a dyke has 9 holes. If the dyke on a
dam sees the dam has a big hole in the dike, the dyke could say damn this
dike,be frightened and jump off, getting a sole caught in the hole, and fall
on a spike, thereby putting a hole in the dyke!
:-))))
D

[Tarver Engineering]

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...

> Unfortunately, I agree with Dudley. Hijacking an international flight
> over the ocean prevents the cellphone remedy (a la UA 93) and prevents
> most (except satellite) communications with the ground. Air cargo is
> another prime target, as there is usually only the crew to deal with.

Why not use the satcom that is already "data 1" to the cockpit? Soon
automation (seperation) will make those equipments a requirement to get in
and out of Europe and Asia.

[John R Weiss]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote...
> >
> >So, if armed pilots thwart only ONE hijacking...
>
> Quite true BUT. I worry about endangering those 'essential to
> flight units'. Think of the ever present danger of a loaded
> pistol in the comparatively small confines of an airliner cockpit
> for years and years, while a steel door (or two) is fairly
> innocuous. Also, as a matter of curiosity, what would you expect
> to happen if a 9MM or so slug were to go through one of the
> windscreens?. Aren't most glass and plastic laminated? (NESA?)

Given the circumstances under which a FFDO's weapon would be fired, I suspect
the damage done by an errant bullet would still be orders of magnitude less than
the alternative.

The program has been well thought out, the training has been given great reviews
by virtually all involved, and the sole "hard" issues remaining are either
administrative in nature or have to do with on-the-ground subjects.

Windscreens are laminated, but I don't know if they all have glass components.
The curved windscreen in the 747-400 appears to be all acrylic. Side windows
are much thinner. A 9 mm hole in a side window would probably be noisy. Given
the angles and other factors present, I can't accurately assess what would
happen to a windscreen with a shot from the inside. I suspect that in many
cases the bullet (especially if a frangible round) would be deflected, and the
windscreen would maintain most of its integrity.

[Jim Yanik]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in
news:LwoIb.705548$Fm2.608202@attbi_s04:

> "Gord Beaman" > wrote...
>> >
>> >So, if armed pilots thwart only ONE hijacking...
>>
>> Quite true BUT. I worry about endangering those 'essential to
>> flight units'. Think of the ever present danger of a loaded
>> pistol in the comparatively small confines of an airliner cockpit
>> for years and years, while a steel door (or two) is fairly
>> innocuous. Also, as a matter of curiosity, what would you expect
>> to happen if a 9MM or so slug were to go through one of the
>> windscreens?. Aren't most glass and plastic laminated? (NESA?)
>
> Given the circumstances under which a FFDO's weapon would be fired, I
> suspect the damage done by an errant bullet would still be orders of
> magnitude less than the alternative.
>
> The program has been well thought out, the training has been given
> great reviews by virtually all involved, and the sole "hard" issues
> remaining are either administrative in nature or have to do with
> on-the-ground subjects.
>
> Windscreens are laminated, but I don't know if they all have glass
> components. The curved windscreen in the 747-400 appears to be all
> acrylic. Side windows are much thinner. A 9 mm hole in a side window
> would probably be noisy. Given the angles and other factors present,
> I can't accurately assess what would happen to a windscreen with a
> shot from the inside. I suspect that in many cases the bullet
> (especially if a frangible round) would be deflected, and the
> windscreen would maintain most of its integrity.
>
>

Why would pilots be firing TOWARDS the windscreen? The attackers would be
coming from the REAR of the plane.Armed pilots would be firing
REARWARDS.They certainly aren't going to wait until the hijackers are fully
IN the cockpit.

Also,I've read that Sky Marshals use ordinary (premium)JHP ammo,as they
might have to penetrate a seatback or other barrier.
IIRC,the guns are .40 S&W caliber.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Juvat]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Jim Yanik
blurted out:


>Why would pilots be firing TOWARDS the windscreen? The attackers would be
>coming from the REAR of the plane.Armed pilots would be firing
>REARWARDS.They certainly aren't going to wait until the hijackers are fully
>IN the cockpit.

Maybe the second or third islamist **** surging into the cockpit...

Maybe the FFDO pulls the trigger early when drawing the weapon out of
the holster...

**** happens.

>Also,I've read that Sky Marshals use ordinary (premium)JHP ammo,as they
>might have to penetrate a seatback or other barrier.
>IIRC,the guns are .40 S&W caliber.

FAMs are using standard ammo, we were dicussing this today on the way
to SFO.

FFDOs are switching from Glocks to H&K .40

Juvat

[Jim Yanik]

Juvat > wrote in
:

> After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Jim Yanik
> blurted out:
>
>
>>Why would pilots be firing TOWARDS the windscreen? The attackers would
>>be coming from the REAR of the plane.Armed pilots would be firing
>>REARWARDS.They certainly aren't going to wait until the hijackers are
>>fully IN the cockpit.
>
> Maybe the second or third islamist **** surging into the cockpit...
Would trip over the dead body of the 1st one thru the doorway.The pilot is
going to draw the gun at the first indication of the door being forced.
And be ready for intruders.
>
> Maybe the FFDO pulls the trigger early when drawing the weapon out of
> the holster...

They may have to disengage the safety before that happens.Or if a double
action trigger,the pull(on the first shot) would be long enough that type
of AD would not happen.I doubt they'll have very light trigger pulls.

>
> **** happens.

Those pilots who -choose- to be armed,would learn how to handle and use
their firearms.An accidental discharge would be very unlikely to occur.
Even so,it's still better than the alternatives of the pilots being
murdered,being shot down,or crashed into some building.(the big picture)
>
>>Also,I've read that Sky Marshals use ordinary (premium)JHP ammo,as
>>they might have to penetrate a seatback or other barrier.
>>IIRC,the guns are .40 S&W caliber.
>
> FAMs are using standard ammo, we were dicussing this today on the way
> to SFO.
>
> FFDOs are switching from Glocks to H&K .40
>
> Juvat
>

"standard" ammo;could be FMJ(full metal jacket),not known for stopping
power,or JHP(jacketed hollow point),which expands upon impact.(regarded as
the better choice for personal defense)


People seem to come up with any excuse or farfetched or unlikely scenario
in order to make an argument against armed pilots.Very irrational.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[[email protected]]

"John R Weiss" > wrote:

>"Gord Beaman" > wrote...
>> >
>> >So, if armed pilots thwart only ONE hijacking...
>>
>> Quite true BUT. I worry about endangering those 'essential to
>> flight units'. Think of the ever present danger of a loaded
>> pistol in the comparatively small confines of an airliner cockpit
>> for years and years, while a steel door (or two) is fairly
>> innocuous. Also, as a matter of curiosity, what would you expect
>> to happen if a 9MM or so slug were to go through one of the
>> windscreens?. Aren't most glass and plastic laminated? (NESA?)
>
>Given the circumstances under which a FFDO's weapon would be fired, I suspect
>the damage done by an errant bullet would still be orders of magnitude less than
>the alternative.
>
>The program has been well thought out, the training has been given great reviews
>by virtually all involved, and the sole "hard" issues remaining are either
>administrative in nature or have to do with on-the-ground subjects.
>
>Windscreens are laminated, but I don't know if they all have glass components.
>The curved windscreen in the 747-400 appears to be all acrylic. Side windows
>are much thinner. A 9 mm hole in a side window would probably be noisy. Given
>the angles and other factors present, I can't accurately assess what would
>happen to a windscreen with a shot from the inside. I suspect that in many
>cases the bullet (especially if a frangible round) would be deflected, and the
>windscreen would maintain most of its integrity.

Thank you John, a nice calm reasoned answer among all this
hysterical hyperbole. So then, if they aren't laminated, how are
they deiced?...a high percentage of military a/c use glass/clear
conductive material/glass laminate called NESA. They apply a
current to the conductive material and this keeps the screen
quite warm...it also adds strength in some installations.

--

-Gord.

[[email protected]]

Jim Yanik > wrote:

>
>Why would pilots be firing TOWARDS the windscreen? The attackers would be
>coming from the REAR of the plane.Armed pilots would be firing
>REARWARDS.They certainly aren't going to wait until the hijackers are fully
>IN the cockpit.
>

Jim, you appear to think that pilots are the only people who know
how to operate pistols. Why would that be now?. Could it be that
you've never heard of 'smuggling a gun aboard' or even 'an inside
job'??. My my!...
--

-Gord.

[[email protected]]

Jim Yanik > wrote:

>
>
>People seem to come up with any excuse or farfetched or unlikely scenario
>in order to make an argument against armed pilots.Very irrational.

While you are of just the opposite bent. Why not discuss the
different offerings and try to pick the most effective/safest all
around method?. Nobody doubts your gun knowledge here but you
certainly can appear strident and unreasonable when someone
argues against you.

And please don't say "I do not!", I'm merely telling you how you
come across.
--

-Gord.

[Jim Yanik]

"Gord Beaman" ) wrote in
:

> Jim Yanik > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>People seem to come up with any excuse or farfetched or unlikely
>>scenario in order to make an argument against armed pilots.Very
>>irrational.
>
> While you are of just the opposite bent. Why not discuss the
> different offerings and try to pick the most effective/safest all
> around method?. Nobody doubts your gun knowledge here but you
> certainly can appear strident and unreasonable when someone
> argues against you.
>
> And please don't say "I do not!", I'm merely telling you how you
> come across.
> --
>
> -Gord.
>

I'm advocating the KISS principle.
Rather than spend lots of bucks on methods that can still be bypassed or
breached,armed pilots will be effective and inexpensive,*immediately
applicable*(a BIG positive),and in the long run,safer.
Much of some folks "no-guns" arguments are based more on biases or wrong
information.(IMO,more bias than anything else.)

Cockpit defense need not be rocket science.


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Jim Yanik]

"Gord Beaman" ) wrote in
:

> "John R Weiss" > wrote:
>
>>"Gord Beaman" > wrote...
>>> >
>>> >So, if armed pilots thwart only ONE hijacking...
>>>
>>> Quite true BUT. I worry about endangering those 'essential to
>>> flight units'. Think of the ever present danger of a loaded
>>> pistol in the comparatively small confines of an airliner cockpit
>>> for years and years, while a steel door (or two) is fairly
>>> innocuous. Also, as a matter of curiosity, what would you expect
>>> to happen if a 9MM or so slug were to go through one of the
>>> windscreens?. Aren't most glass and plastic laminated? (NESA?)
>>
>>Given the circumstances under which a FFDO's weapon would be fired, I
>>suspect the damage done by an errant bullet would still be orders of
>>magnitude less than the alternative.
>>
>>The program has been well thought out, the training has been given
>>great reviews by virtually all involved, and the sole "hard" issues
>>remaining are either administrative in nature or have to do with
>>on-the-ground subjects.
>>
>>Windscreens are laminated, but I don't know if they all have glass
>>components. The curved windscreen in the 747-400 appears to be all
>>acrylic. Side windows are much thinner. A 9 mm hole in a side window
>>would probably be noisy. Given the angles and other factors present,
>>I can't accurately assess what would happen to a windscreen with a
>>shot from the inside. I suspect that in many cases the bullet
>>(especially if a frangible round) would be deflected, and the
>>windscreen would maintain most of its integrity.
>
> Thank you John, a nice calm reasoned answer among all this
> hysterical hyperbole. So then, if they aren't laminated, how are
> they deiced?...a high percentage of military a/c use glass/clear
> conductive material/glass laminate called NESA. They apply a
> current to the conductive material and this keeps the screen
> quite warm...it also adds strength in some installations.
>
> --
>
> -Gord.

Would aircraft use any plastic films in the laminate,such as automotive
glass uses?

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Jim Yanik]

"Gord Beaman" ) wrote in
:

> Jim Yanik > wrote:
>
>>
>>Why would pilots be firing TOWARDS the windscreen? The attackers would
>>be coming from the REAR of the plane.Armed pilots would be firing
>>REARWARDS.They certainly aren't going to wait until the hijackers are
>>fully IN the cockpit.
>>
>
> Jim, you appear to think that pilots are the only people who know
> how to operate pistols. Why would that be now?. Could it be that
> you've never heard of 'smuggling a gun aboard' or even 'an inside
> job'??. My my!...
> --
>
> -Gord.

Sure,guns can be smuggled aboard;I've even posted examples of guns brought
aboard by mistake by people,and by a US Federal official leaving their gun
on their seat and deplaning.But the debate was/is about armed PILOTS,and
comments made about -them- firing forwards.

If another hijacking does occur using guns,it probably -will- be an "inside
job",IMO. But in that case,only an armed pilot will be capable of defending
the cockpit.All the other security methods will have been rendered useless
then.

One other thing;are any "crash axes" available in the passenger
compartment? Or solely in the cockpit? (WRT commercial flights)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Juvat]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Jim Yanik
blurted out:

>People seem to come up with any excuse or farfetched or unlikely scenario
>in order to make an argument against armed pilots.Very irrational.

Ummm, if you intended that remark for me...you are mistaken.

I remember how farfetched or unlikely a total hydraulic failure in the
DC-10 was... until it happened.

Juvat

[Juvat]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Jim Yanik
blurted out:


>One other thing;are any "crash axes" available in the passenger
>compartment? Or solely in the cockpit? (WRT commercial flights)

Cockpit only...and ours are very sharp.

Juvat

[[email protected]]

Jim Yanik > wrote:

>If another hijacking does occur using guns,it probably -will- be an "inside
>job",IMO. But in that case,only an armed pilot will be capable of defending
>the cockpit.All the other security methods will have been rendered useless
>then.
>

??
How does a bad guy (even holding a gun) get through a secure
cockpit door?...that's a silly statement Jim.

>One other thing;are any "crash axes" available in the passenger
>compartment? Or solely in the cockpit? (WRT commercial flights)

In military a/c yes, in civil airliners, I doubt it.
--

-Gord.

[[email protected]]

Jim Yanik > wrote:

>"Gord Beaman" ) wrote in
:
>
>> "John R Weiss" > wrote:
>>
>>>"Gord Beaman" > wrote...
>>>> >
>>>> >So, if armed pilots thwart only ONE hijacking...
>>>>
>>>> Quite true BUT. I worry about endangering those 'essential to
>>>> flight units'. Think of the ever present danger of a loaded
>>>> pistol in the comparatively small confines of an airliner cockpit
>>>> for years and years, while a steel door (or two) is fairly
>>>> innocuous. Also, as a matter of curiosity, what would you expect
>>>> to happen if a 9MM or so slug were to go through one of the
>>>> windscreens?. Aren't most glass and plastic laminated? (NESA?)
>>>
>>>Given the circumstances under which a FFDO's weapon would be fired, I
>>>suspect the damage done by an errant bullet would still be orders of
>>>magnitude less than the alternative.
>>>
>>>The program has been well thought out, the training has been given
>>>great reviews by virtually all involved, and the sole "hard" issues
>>>remaining are either administrative in nature or have to do with
>>>on-the-ground subjects.
>>>
>>>Windscreens are laminated, but I don't know if they all have glass
>>>components. The curved windscreen in the 747-400 appears to be all
>>>acrylic. Side windows are much thinner. A 9 mm hole in a side window
>>>would probably be noisy. Given the angles and other factors present,
>>>I can't accurately assess what would happen to a windscreen with a
>>>shot from the inside. I suspect that in many cases the bullet
>>>(especially if a frangible round) would be deflected, and the
>>>windscreen would maintain most of its integrity.
>>
>> Thank you John, a nice calm reasoned answer among all this
>> hysterical hyperbole. So then, if they aren't laminated, how are
>> they deiced?...a high percentage of military a/c use glass/clear
>> conductive material/glass laminate called NESA. They apply a
>> current to the conductive material and this keeps the screen
>> quite warm...it also adds strength in some installations.
>>
>> --
>>
>> -Gord.
>
>Would aircraft use any plastic films in the laminate,such as automotive
>glass uses?

I don't know Jim...I do know that some use two sheets of safety
glass bonded to some kind of conductive plastic material that
they apply electrical current to for deicing. The glass becomes
very warm to the touch. It's known as 'NESA windscreens'.
--

-Gord.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN]

Jim Yanik wrote:
> Cockpit defense need not be rocket science.


The biggest mistake I see people making in the discussion of cockpit defense is
the assumption that any one obstacle will be adequate, combined with a rather
rigid assumption of probable conditions.

Cockpit defense should begin with a good screening of passengers. Skip the old
ladies and the blonde hair/blue eyed crowd. Right now the enemy is of Middle
Eastern descent. Concentrate efforts on those who fit the profile; forget any
crap about what's fair and what's not. We're not playing football here.

Air marshalls in the cabin should be the second line of defense. I recognize
there are nowhere near enough of them now, but it should be a goal. I'm not
opposed to police officers and those with concealed carry permits carrying guns
in the cabin either. Every one of them has had an extensive background check.
We need to mix a few porcupines in with the wolves. We can't afford to all be
sheep anymore.

The armored cockpit door should be the next layer. I know they are not
bulletproof, but if they can help keep out the hordes, so much the better.

The final layer should be the pilot. I've heard it said numerous times that a
pilot's time is best spent flying, but that's a difficult thing to do with his
throat cut. The possibility that he may hit an innocent has to balanced against
the probable deaths of all aboard if the hijack is not stopped (and God knows
how many on the ground). I'll take my chances with a hull puncture... once
again, the alternative is too costly to consider.

The TSA needs to get up off its collective ass and get the program running...
not continue to practice passive resistance to the intent of Congress.

Let's face it: the days of the "peaceful" hijack are over. Nobody wants to go
to Cuba anymore. Hijacking now lead to the deaths of all aboard if they're
successful. We can't allow that.

If the airlines don't trust their pilots with guns, why did they hire them?

Frankly, if the passengers don't trust their pilot with a gun, why would they be
on a plane? I'm sure they could find an unarmed bus driver or train engineer
more to their liking.

Time to get up off the dime!



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN


http://www.mortimerschnerd.com

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Jim Yanik
> writes
>"Gord Beaman" ) wrote in
>> While you are of just the opposite bent. Why not discuss the
>> different offerings and try to pick the most effective/safest all
>> around method?. Nobody doubts your gun knowledge here but you
>> certainly can appear strident and unreasonable when someone
>> argues against you.
>>
>> And please don't say "I do not!", I'm merely telling you how you
>> come across.

>I'm advocating the KISS principle.
>Rather than spend lots of bucks on methods that can still be bypassed or
>breached,armed pilots will be effective and inexpensive,*immediately
>applicable*(a BIG positive),and in the long run,safer.

Not if it's the only measure taken because it's cheap, quick, easy (and
allows any failures to be blamed on the pilots)

I'm not opposed to pilots having the option of going armed as part of
the security system: I _am_ opposed to flight crew armament being the
entire security system.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Jim Yanik]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in
. com:

> Jim Yanik wrote:
>> Cockpit defense need not be rocket science.
>
>
> The biggest mistake I see people making in the discussion of cockpit
> defense is the assumption that any one obstacle will be adequate,
> combined with a rather rigid assumption of probable conditions.

I have no argument with any of these,but only one can be implemented in a
short period of time,and with the added benefit of little expense.
>
> Cockpit defense should begin with a good screening of passengers.
> Skip the old ladies and the blonde hair/blue eyed crowd. Right now
> the enemy is of Middle Eastern descent. Concentrate efforts on those
> who fit the profile; forget any crap about what's fair and what's not.
> We're not playing football here.
>
> Air marshalls in the cabin should be the second line of defense. I
> recognize there are nowhere near enough of them now, but it should be
> a goal. I'm not opposed to police officers and those with concealed
> carry permits carrying guns in the cabin either. Every one of them
> has had an extensive background check. We need to mix a few porcupines
> in with the wolves. We can't afford to all be sheep anymore.
>
> The armored cockpit door should be the next layer. I know they are
> not bulletproof, but if they can help keep out the hordes, so much the
> better.
>
> The final layer should be the pilot. I've heard it said numerous
> times that a pilot's time is best spent flying, but that's a difficult
> thing to do with his throat cut. The possibility that he may hit an
> innocent has to balanced against the probable deaths of all aboard if
> the hijack is not stopped (and God knows how many on the ground).
> I'll take my chances with a hull puncture... once again, the
> alternative is too costly to consider.

There's also TWO pilots,one for flying,and one for shooting. 8-)
>
> The TSA needs to get up off its collective ass and get the program
> running... not continue to practice passive resistance to the intent
> of Congress.
>
> Let's face it: the days of the "peaceful" hijack are over. Nobody
> wants to go to Cuba anymore. Hijacking now lead to the deaths of all
> aboard if they're successful. We can't allow that.
>
> If the airlines don't trust their pilots with guns, why did they hire
> them?
>
> Frankly, if the passengers don't trust their pilot with a gun, why
> would they be on a plane? I'm sure they could find an unarmed bus
> driver or train engineer more to their liking.
>
> Time to get up off the dime!
>
>
>



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Jim Yanik]

Juvat > wrote in
:

> After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Jim Yanik
> blurted out:
>
>
>>One other thing;are any "crash axes" available in the passenger
>>compartment? Or solely in the cockpit? (WRT commercial flights)
>
> Cockpit only...and ours are very sharp.
>
> Juvat
>
>

And once it gets stuck in (or held by)the first hijacker,it's useless for
any others. Miss,and you don't get another try.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Jim Yanik]

"Gord Beaman" ) wrote in
:

> Jim Yanik > wrote:
>
>>If another hijacking does occur using guns,it probably -will- be an
>>"inside job",IMO. But in that case,only an armed pilot will be capable
>>of defending the cockpit.All the other security methods will have been
>>rendered useless then.
>>
>
> ??
> How does a bad guy (even holding a gun) get through a secure
> cockpit door?...that's a silly statement Jim.

Doors get opened during flight for various reasons.Even 'secure' ones.
The reinforced cockpit doors alread have two examples of them being
breached.(cleaning crew using a beverage cart as a ram.)
An unruly passenger also kicked his way partly thru one,IIRC.(that guy got
the crash axe!)
There's more than one way to open a door. Det cord could have also been
smuggled aboard,if guns have been.
>
>>One other thing;are any "crash axes" available in the passenger
>>compartment? Or solely in the cockpit? (WRT commercial flights)
>
> In military a/c yes, in civil airliners, I doubt it.
> --
>
> -Gord.
>



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Jim Yanik]

Juvat > wrote in
:

> After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Jim Yanik
> blurted out:
>
>>People seem to come up with any excuse or farfetched or unlikely
>>scenario in order to make an argument against armed pilots.Very
>>irrational.
>
> Ummm, if you intended that remark for me...you are mistaken.
>
> I remember how farfetched or unlikely a total hydraulic failure in the
> DC-10 was... until it happened.
>
> Juvat
>

How's that an argument against armed pilots?

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

> I'm not opposed to pilots having the option of going armed as part of
> the security system: I _am_ opposed to flight crew armament being the
> entire security system.

Good point, but "being the entire security system" would entail stopping
airport gate security, stopping background checks on airline empolyees,
and tying all passengers into their seats so nobody could interfere with
possible hijackers.

You see, the old terrorist plan included an assumption that nobody in
the plane would do anything out of fear for their own lives, while the
new plan has to assume that everyone on the plane will go absolutely
bat**** if someone tries to hijack the plane.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Juvat]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Jim Yanik
blurted out:

>>>People seem to come up with any excuse or farfetched or unlikely
>>>scenario in order to make an argument against armed pilots.Very
>>>irrational.

To which I posted...
>>
>> Ummm, if you intended that remark for me...you are mistaken.

That "should" have disabused you of any notion that I am opposed to
armed pilots. But there are risks. Perhaps that's one reason that ugly
divorces and personal financial difficulty are high interest items in
the FFDO screening process...hmmmm.

Clearly the following confused you just a bit...when I posted

>> I remember how farfetched or unlikely a total hydraulic failure in the
>> DC-10 was... until it happened.

To which Jim Yanik asked.

>How's that an argument against armed pilots?

Ummm, it's NOT, it's a reminder that no matter how convinced you might
be that an armed pilot WILL NOT **** up and accidently shoot the other
pilot or a windscreen/window...I think you are in error.

Surely your flying career has vivid examples of guys ****ing up (when
nobody was threatening them). I witnessed two guys land gear up.

So...my initial post on how a window or other pilot COULD get shot by
a FFDO, is plausible...NOT probable...simply plausible.

If you are looking for somebody to argue with...count me out. I have
no interest.

Juvat

[Juvat]

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, Jim Yanik
blurted out:

>And once it gets stuck in (or held by)the first hijacker,it's useless for
>any others. Miss,and you don't get another try.

Guess you're not aware that before 9/11 the blade on a crash ax was
pretty damn dull. THAT was the point (so to speak).

Be that as it may...do you have any familiarity with the current
status of cockpit doors, security zones of the doors, VID procedures,
deadbolts and electric locks on these doors?

All these procedures and hardware are useless if crews **** up and
think, "it can't happen to me."

Juvat

[Keith Willshaw]

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" > wrote in message
. com...

>
> Cockpit defense should begin with a good screening of passengers. Skip
the old
> ladies and the blonde hair/blue eyed crowd. Right now the enemy is of
Middle
> Eastern descent. Concentrate efforts on those who fit the profile; forget
any
> crap about what's fair and what's not. We're not playing football here.
>

Which of course means you miss people like the Americans, Aussies
and Brits who joined Al Qaeda not to mention the Japanese who
attacked Lod airport and werent picked up because they obviously
werent Palestinians

Then there are the blond haired blue eyed terrorists of the various
German groups like Bader Meinhoff and the RAF.

Ignoring whole races is a BAD idea.

Keith

[John R Weiss]

"Juvat" wrote...
>
> Guess you're not aware that before 9/11 the blade on a crash ax was
> pretty damn dull. THAT was the point (so to speak).

Not a problem. After all, you don't really want to CUT anything with it -- you
want to SMASH something (i.e., the hijacker's skull) with it. Sharp doesn't
matter when the point is well under a square inch, and you attain significant
velocity with it...

[Tarver Engineering]

"John R Weiss" > wrote in message
news:JPjJb.43203$xX.154941@attbi_s02...
> "Juvat" wrote...
> >
> > Guess you're not aware that before 9/11 the blade on a crash ax was
> > pretty damn dull. THAT was the point (so to speak).
>
> Not a problem. After all, you don't really want to CUT anything with
it -- you
> want to SMASH something (i.e., the hijacker's skull) with it. Sharp
doesn't
> matter when the point is well under a square inch, and you attain
significant
> velocity with it...

Now all we need is a pilot's course on pushing the ax, as opposed to
swinging it.

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Chad Irby
> writes
>In article >,
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
>> I'm not opposed to pilots having the option of going armed as part of
>> the security system: I _am_ opposed to flight crew armament being the
>> entire security system.
>
>Good point, but "being the entire security system" would entail stopping
>airport gate security, stopping background checks on airline empolyees,
>and tying all passengers into their seats so nobody could interfere with
>possible hijackers.

So allowing pilots to be armed will completely and totally fix all
airline security issues?

I think the contribution may be overstated, but it may also save a
situation one day. There are issues to deal with but it's not a
showstopper.

But "better doors for the cockpit" strike me as a much more important
issue, regardless of the armament of the pilots: having failed to keep
the threat off the aircraft, it's better to keep the Bad Guys out of the
cockpit with the option of shooting the ones who get in, than rely only
on shooting them. And a better door means that many attempts won't get
in at all, with only those succeeding discovering the armament, skill
and determination of the flight crew (whose main job, after all, is to
Fly The Damn Aircraft)

Trouble is, that's more expensive and difficult to implement, even if
it's also more useful.

>You see, the old terrorist plan included an assumption that nobody in
>the plane would do anything out of fear for their own lives, while the
>new plan has to assume that everyone on the plane will go absolutely
>bat**** if someone tries to hijack the plane.

You noticed that too? Screw "sit still, keep your eyes down and wait
until you're rescued or ransomed" now... but what's that got to do with
the pilots having a handgun or two?

For that matter, why can't _I_ have a handgun on an airliner? I've got
the demonstrated skills and experience, and clearance out of the ears.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

> In message >, Chad Irby
> > writes
> >In article >,
> > "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
> >> I'm not opposed to pilots having the option of going armed as part of
> >> the security system: I _am_ opposed to flight crew armament being the
> >> entire security system.
> >
> >Good point, but "being the entire security system" would entail stopping
> >airport gate security, stopping background checks on airline empolyees,
> >and tying all passengers into their seats so nobody could interfere with
> >possible hijackers.
>
> So allowing pilots to be armed will completely and totally fix all
> airline security issues?

Not only "no," but "nobody has claimed that."

> For that matter, why can't _I_ have a handgun on an airliner? I've got
> the demonstrated skills and experience, and clearance out of the ears.

That's something I've been wondering about, myself.

A minor scenario: If a law officer (or qualified agent of the
government) wants to fly on a plane, not only do they get to carry their
guns, they get a discount. A *big* discount. Maybe free. With perks.
All they have to do is show up sober, not drink on the flight, and be
ready to shoot someone in the right situation. A minor training course
on shooting people in planes (along with How to Recognize a Terrorist),
and you get a little card that makes all of this go smoothly.

Much cheaper than trying to hire a few thousand Air Marshalls to try and
cover all flights. Sure, you won't get 100% coverage, but you'd
certainly get a lot with that cheap/free ticket.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Jim Yanik]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote in
:

> In message >, Chad Irby
> writes
>>In article >,
>> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
>>> I'm not opposed to pilots having the option of going armed as part of
>>> the security system: I _am_ opposed to flight crew armament being the
>>> entire security system.
>>
>>Good point, but "being the entire security system" would entail stopping
>>airport gate security, stopping background checks on airline empolyees,
>>and tying all passengers into their seats so nobody could interfere with
>>possible hijackers.
>
> So allowing pilots to be armed will completely and totally fix all
> airline security issues?

No,but it can be implemented virtually immediately,and at little cost,no
added personnel,and greatly complicates a hijack attempt.

>
> I think the contribution may be overstated, but it may also save a
> situation one day. There are issues to deal with but it's not a
> showstopper.
>
> But "better doors for the cockpit" strike me as a much more important
> issue, regardless of the armament of the pilots: having failed to keep
> the threat off the aircraft, it's better to keep the Bad Guys out of the
> cockpit with the option of shooting the ones who get in, than rely only
> on shooting them. And a better door means that many attempts won't get
> in at all, with only those succeeding discovering the armament, skill
> and determination of the flight crew (whose main job, after all, is to
> Fly The Damn Aircraft)

Well,one "better door" already has been breached,according to one pilot who
wrote into AvLeak.(beverage cart 'test' by cabin cleaners)
>
> Trouble is, that's more expensive and difficult to implement, even if
> it's also more useful.

I agree it's necessary to implement,but as you said,it takes time to
implement,and costs quite a bit.

> For that matter, why can't _I_ have a handgun on an airliner? I've got
> the demonstrated skills and experience, and clearance out of the ears.
>

A lot of people are asking that question.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

[[email protected]]

Chad Irby > wrote:

>
>A minor scenario: If a law officer (or qualified agent of the
>government) wants to fly on a plane, not only do they get to carry their
>guns, they get a discount. A *big* discount. Maybe free. With perks.
>All they have to do is show up sober, not drink on the flight, and be
>ready to shoot someone in the right situation. A minor training course
>on shooting people in planes (along with How to Recognize a Terrorist),
>and you get a little card that makes all of this go smoothly.
>
>Much cheaper than trying to hire a few thousand Air Marshalls to try and
>cover all flights. Sure, you won't get 100% coverage, but you'd
>certainly get a lot with that cheap/free ticket.

Hell of a good idea...one other stipulation, they gotta fly in
civilian clothes, that way nobody can tell who is who. Then
advertise the opportunity all over the place, both to get
volunteers and to thwart would-be terrorists. Sounds like cheap
insurance for the airlines to me. Get your patent application in
there Chad. :)
--

-Gord.

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Chad Irby
> writes
>In article >,
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
>> So allowing pilots to be armed will completely and totally fix all
>> airline security issues?
>
>Not only "no," but "nobody has claimed that."

"Not arming pilots" has been claimed to condemn thousands of innocents
to agonised fiery deaths; while giving them handguns is claimed to
guarantee safety. After all, reinforced doors can be broken down,
security bypassed, et cetera, but the idea that a handgun in the cockpit
might fail to stop 100% of hijack attempts is purest heresy...

If the Bad Guys are able to overwhelm the passengers (who these days are
a lot less likely to believe that sitting still and quiet while avoiding
eye contact will help save their lives) sufficient to break into the
cockpit they've got aboard with numbers, organisation and weapons: while
the flight crew are limited in numbers, stuck in a small and crowded
space, and busy with the key job of Flying The Damn Plane: while George
may handle routine tasks, how well does the autopilot cope with the
cockpit becoming a warzone and who recovers the aircraft afterwards?


I'd rather keep the Bad Guys off the aircraft, have them board unarmed
if they board at all, make them face a solid and tough barrier if they
_do_ get to the door (with a planeful of frightened passengers behind
them, aware that if the hijack succeeds they'll be payload in an
oversized Kamikaze), and then have them worry whether the first man
struggling through that door will get a crash axe in the head or a
chestful of JHP bullets; rather than use "the pilot might be armed" to
justify skimping on the other measures.


Trouble is, improving ground security and keeping it improved costs
money (and time and hassle for passengers). Restricting cockpit access
costs money. Saying to pilots "If you've got a handgun, you can carry
it" is extremely cheap. And the airline business isn't exactly a
high-profit business at the moment; carriers who can find corners to
cut, will eagerly do so.

I'm not opposed to arming pilots; I'm arguing that the assumption should
be they will be unarmed (because many will be, regardless) and that it's
a bonus rather than a dependable layer.

>> For that matter, why can't _I_ have a handgun on an airliner? I've got
>> the demonstrated skills and experience, and clearance out of the ears.
>
>That's something I've been wondering about, myself.

I've got the excuse that I had to hand mine in back in 1997... though
I'm willing to be issued one and sign for it as necessary.

>A minor scenario: If a law officer (or qualified agent of the
>government)

I might qualify for that :)

>wants to fly on a plane, not only do they get to carry their
>guns, they get a discount. A *big* discount. Maybe free. With perks.

Not only would _I_ like that, but my management would _love_ it if they
could get us analysts cheap/free air travel. I've had assorted
convolutions on overseas visits (when I went to the Canadian Maritime
Warfare Centre, I left on Saturday rather than Sunday because paying me
and the hotel for the extra day was cheaper, and I was flying economy
class[1])

>All they have to do is show up sober, not drink on the flight, and be
>ready to shoot someone in the right situation. A minor training course
>on shooting people in planes (along with How to Recognize a Terrorist),
>and you get a little card that makes all of this go smoothly.

We might quibble on how much a "minor training course" requires, but
probably not by too much.

Congratulations, Mr Irby, for once we seem to be agreeing with each
other!

Now stop this deviant behaviour at once and go back to arguing with
everything I say :)




[1] I'm apparently entitled to fly business class wherever I go.
However, with a finite travel budget, them as is willing to travel
cheaper are much more likely to get their travel requests approved.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

> while giving them handguns is claimed to
> guarantee safety.

Only by you.

And that's the thing. While other folks are saying things like "it
would help," or "it would give another line of defense," you're reading
those lines as "WE GUARANTEE safety," and arguing from that point.

Come back when you're ready to stop these silly strawman attempts.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

> Now stop this deviant behaviour at once and go back to arguing with
> everything I say :)

See other post.

;)

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Harry Andreas]

In article >, Chad Irby
> wrote:

> A minor scenario: If a law officer (or qualified agent of the
> government) wants to fly on a plane, not only do they get to carry their
> guns, they get a discount. A *big* discount. Maybe free. With perks.
> All they have to do is show up sober, not drink on the flight, and be
> ready to shoot someone in the right situation. A minor training course
> on shooting people in planes (along with How to Recognize a Terrorist),
> and you get a little card that makes all of this go smoothly.
>
> Much cheaper than trying to hire a few thousand Air Marshalls to try and
> cover all flights. Sure, you won't get 100% coverage, but you'd
> certainly get a lot with that cheap/free ticket.

Trouble is, most (that's most) police officers are fairly lousy shots.

There was an incident in downtown L.A. a few years ago where 5
sheriffs deputys were chasing a perp down the street. He's shooting
over the shoulder at them, they're chasing him.
He makes the big mistake...runs down a driveway into an underground
parking lot, and ooops: the gate is down and he can't get out.
The cops are at the top, he's at the bottom, straight line of sight.
He starts shooting at them.
They shoot back. Cops shot something like 45 rounds at this guy in half
a minute and hit him exactly once. Winged him in the arm.
Spray and pray.

This is what the TSA with their Air Marshal program is intent on avoiding
and I say good for them.

I'm just glad MY car wasn't parked in that underground lot.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Chad Irby
> writes
>In article >,
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
>> while giving them handguns is claimed to
>> guarantee safety.
>
>Only by you.

No, Chad - I'm going from what I've read.
>
>And that's the thing. While other folks are saying things like "it
>would help," or "it would give another line of defense," you're reading
>those lines as "WE GUARANTEE safety," and arguing from that point.

Maybe the proponents had got overheated, but they were quite genuinely
claiming that Unarmed Pilots = Certain Death while other measures were
useless and pointless.

I can only read what they wrote.


Back when I had the time and patience to read alt.disasters.aviation the
subject came up now and then, before Bertie the Bunyip and Ladypilot put
the S/N ratio beyond what I could bear.

>Come back when you're ready to stop these silly strawman attempts.

I'm just going by what's claimed. You don't agree with the wilder
statements, fine, but the claims were made.

You're not going to see British or Japanese (to pick two nations with
draconian firearms controls) pilots carrying arms anytime soon; does
that not imply that the priority lies elsewhere?

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[John R Weiss]

"Paul J. Adam" > wrote...
>
> No, Chad - I'm going from what I've read.
>
> Maybe the proponents had got overheated, but they were quite genuinely
> claiming that Unarmed Pilots = Certain Death while other measures were
> useless and pointless.
>
> I can only read what they wrote.

Who is the "they" and what did "they" write? Please copy for us "what they
wrote" and "what [you]'ve read."

I haven't seen anything from any of the proponents of armed pilots that that
single measure is either the panacea or a replacement for all other measures (or
ANY other measures, for that matter)! All the credible posts I've read (and
you've been here long enough to know the "incredible" posters) see arming pilots
as a means of last defense when all the other measures have failed, and better
than the other credible alternative when a terrorist gains access to the cockpit
when airborne.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(Harry Andreas) wrote:

> In article >, Chad Irby
> > wrote:
>
> > A minor scenario: If a law officer (or qualified agent of the
> > government) wants to fly on a plane, not only do they get to carry their
> > guns, they get a discount. A *big* discount. Maybe free. With perks.
> > All they have to do is show up sober, not drink on the flight, and be
> > ready to shoot someone in the right situation. A minor training course
> > on shooting people in planes (along with How to Recognize a Terrorist),
> > and you get a little card that makes all of this go smoothly.
> >
> > Much cheaper than trying to hire a few thousand Air Marshalls to try and
> > cover all flights. Sure, you won't get 100% coverage, but you'd
> > certainly get a lot with that cheap/free ticket.
>
> Trouble is, most (that's most) police officers are fairly lousy shots.

That's why you put them through the course - you reject the ones who
can't shoot.

> This is what the TSA with their Air Marshal program is intent on avoiding
> and I say good for them.

....and if adding a lot of other officers to the ranks of "people who can
shoot," it's better for everyone.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

> You're not going to see British or Japanese (to pick two nations with
> draconian firearms controls) pilots carrying arms anytime soon; does
> that not imply that the priority lies elsewhere?

Well, if they don't want to, they don't have to, but allowing pilots to
carry them seems like a fairly minor risk with a potentially huge
return. If you can't trust a pilot with a handgun, then why trust him
with a quarter-million kilogram plane and 400 lives?

And since the British have a Sky Marshal program already (one of their
airlines has already signed on), taking the decision of whether guns
will be on planes out of the pilots' hands seems like another choice.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Paul J. Adam]

In message <ciHKb.302864$_M.1726899@attbi_s54>, John R Weiss
> writes
>"Paul J. Adam" > wrote...
>> No, Chad - I'm going from what I've read.
>>
>> Maybe the proponents had got overheated, but they were quite genuinely
>> claiming that Unarmed Pilots = Certain Death while other measures were
>> useless and pointless.
>>
>> I can only read what they wrote.
>
>Who is the "they" and what did "they" write? Please copy for us "what they
>wrote" and "what [you]'ve read."

+++++
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Date: 2001-09-25 19:09:36 PST
From: John R Weiss )
Subject: Re: PIlots want to carry guns

If you take a look at the multitude of airplane models in service, and
the variations in the doors, and the [lack of] space available for
double doors or other auxiliary installations, you may decide that all
that engineering, certification, fabrication, and installation is NOT
cheaper than arming pilots...

From: Viper56-FW )
Subject: Re: Divided passenger planes?
Newsgroups: alt.aviation.safety, rec.aviation.military,
rec.aviation.piloting, rec.travel.air
Date: 2001-09-20 08:36:38 PST

Let's consider the money involved in posibly a major structural change
that would only create a different problem(s).

+++++
Only Guns Can Stop Terrorists
By John R. Lott Jr. Mr. Lott is a resident
scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of "More
Guns, Less Crime" (University of Chicago Press, 2000).
....Strengthening cockpit doors is probably a good idea, but given
current airline design it may create dangerous differences in air
pressure between the cockpit and cabin.
+++++

From: Drew Johnson )
Subject: Re: Divided passenger planes?
Newsgroups: alt.aviation.safety, rec.aviation.military,
rec.aviation.piloting, rec.travel.air
Date: 2001-09-21 15:04:03 PST

We have little confidence in any 'door solution' that the government and
airline executives might be able to come up with.

+++++
From: Drew Johnson )
Subject: Re: Divided passenger planes?
Newsgroups: alt.aviation.safety, rec.aviation.military,
rec.aviation.piloting, rec.travel.air
Date: 2001-09-22 11:26:08 PST

If one secure door was important, it would have been done two decades
ago, my friend.

+++++

From: Drew Johnson )
Subject: Re: Divided passenger planes?
Newsgroups: alt.aviation.safety, rec.aviation.military,
rec.aviation.piloting, rec.travel.air
Date: 2001-09-22 11:15:20 PST

I guess you just don't understand the mind-set of executive management.
You are talking about taking up "space" that a fare paying passenger
could be sitting. Or, on the other hand a MAJOR "reconfiguration" of
thousands of aircraft, which will cost airlines BILLIONS.

The reason we find ourselves in the position we are in today is that it
would "cost" more than the damn bean counters were willing to spend.
Whether it is/was in the form of actual cost or lost revenue.
+++++

From: Drew Johnson )
Subject: Re: We Got Weapons !!
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Date: 2001-10-16 13:35:05 PST

"In reality" . .This is the same, tired old "quick fix" mentality to
which the corporate bozos always revert -and is NOT going to thwart a
dedicated . . or strong individual from gaining access.

+++++
From: Garner Miller )
Subject: Re: Trained Pilots Should Carry Firearms
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.piloting
Date: 2002-05-03 20:21:33 PST

My point is that I don't care how impregnable you think you can make the
door, I guarantee there WILL be a way in. Another shoe bomber waiting
in line at the first-class lavatory while he casually slips his shoe off
is about all it would take.
++++++

>I haven't seen anything from any of the proponents of armed pilots that that
>single measure is either the panacea or a replacement for all other
>measures (or
>ANY other measures, for that matter)! All the credible posts I've read (and
>you've been here long enough to know the "incredible" posters)
>see arming pilots
>as a means of last defense when all the other measures have failed, and better
>than the other credible alternative when a terrorist gains access to
>the cockpit
>when airborne.

Whereas my concern remains that "arming the pilots" is a quick,
convenient and cheap (from the business' point of view) option, compared
to securing the cockpit from intrusion. After all, if you've got a belt,
do you _need_ an expensive pair of braces?

I'm not opposed to it as a last inner layer, just concerned that it not
be used to duck other measures.
--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Chad Irby
> writes
>In article >,
> "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
>
>> You're not going to see British or Japanese (to pick two nations with
>> draconian firearms controls) pilots carrying arms anytime soon; does
>> that not imply that the priority lies elsewhere?
>
>Well, if they don't want to, they don't have to, but allowing pilots to
>carry them seems like a fairly minor risk with a potentially huge
>return. If you can't trust a pilot with a handgun, then why trust him
>with a quarter-million kilogram plane and 400 lives?

What happens when "carrying a handgun" carries a five-year prison
sentence? I don't like the situation but that's the law of the land
here.

No argument about "trusting the pilot" either - but then think about the
odds of an unknown number of foes, armed in unknown fashion, attacking
at a time of their choosing... versus two men, strapped into seats
facing the wrong way.

One reason I'm not enthusiastic (though not opposed) about 'arming
pilots' is that the El Presidente shoot (which you start with your back
to the targets: draw, turn, fire) is very difficult even when standing
unconstrained and shooting at cardboard. From a "sitting, strapped down"
position with moving targets intent on slashing your throat with real
knives, I don't see it getting any easier.

Last line of defence? Sure, I can buy that. But plan and prepare on "the
pilots are unarmed", with an armed and skilled pilot being an unexpected
bonus for the Good Guys and a nagging worry for the foe.


Where does a UK pilot go to practice with a firearm? We haven't been
able to legally massacre paper targets with pistol fire since 1997.

>And since the British have a Sky Marshal program already (one of their
>airlines has already signed on),

And at least one more has explicitly rejected it, on the basis of "if
there's that sort of threat why fly?".

>taking the decision of whether guns
>will be on planes out of the pilots' hands seems like another choice.

It seems from anecdote that rather more US airline pilots are
ex-military than UK, so we don't have the "could at least pass USAF
firearms skills tests" to fall back on. British Army pistol APWT was not
demanding - I got a perfect score on my first try and (as I later
discovered) I was not a particularly fine shot, just taking an easy
test.

And to be quite honest, few UK citizens are experienced shooters with
_anything_, making it hard to find practiced shooters to carry weapons
in cockpits. (I wasn't a bad shot but nobody's trying to hire me).

I'm not opposed to the idea, just to careless or greedy implementations.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[John S. Shinal]

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
>I've proved I'm a half-decent shot with ... called
>indirect fire; so where do I apply for some armament?

"Drop two seat rows and fire for effect !"



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[funkraum]

[...]
There was a hi-jack in the 80s (?) where one of the military personnel
on the ground attempted to shoot a hi-jacker through the windshield on
a 747 (?) . Nothing happened of course, due to the thickness of the
material. My assumption had been that the round was most likely
7.62mm.

It might have been the hi-jack where hi-jackers threw one of the
wounded crew members onto the concrete apron and he broke his neck as
he hit the ground - but I could be mixing up two hi-jacks.

I have the impression the hi-jack to which I am referring was
somewhere like Teheran or Damascus.

[John R Weiss]

"funkraum" > wrote...
>
> There was a hi-jack in the 80s (?) where one of the military personnel
> on the ground attempted to shoot a hi-jacker through the windshield on
> a 747 (?) . Nothing happened of course, due to the thickness of the
> material. My assumption had been that the round was most likely
> 7.62mm.

If the shot was fired at a 747 windshield from the ground, the impact angle
would have as much to do with lack of penetration as the thickness of the
material. Also, if a rifle round from a SWAT team, it would just as likely be a
5.56mm (.223 cal) from an AR-15 or similar.

[funkraum]

> "John R Weiss" > wrote:
>>"funkraum" > wrote...

>> There was a hi-jack in the 80s (?) where one of the military personnel
>> on the ground attempted to shoot a hi-jacker through the windshield on
>> a 747 (?) . Nothing happened of course, due to the thickness of the
>> material. My assumption had been that the round was most likely
>> 7.62mm.
>
>If the shot was fired at a 747 windshield from the ground, the impact angle
>would have as much to do with lack of penetration as the thickness of the
>material. Also, if a rifle round from a SWAT team, it would just as likely be a
>5.56mm (.223 cal) from an AR-15 or similar.
>

I do not think there are many Middle Eastern armed forces using the
5.56mm, especially in 1984.

From:

http://www.geocities.com/khlim777_my/ashijack.htm

"A Kuwait Airways B747 was hijacked by Shi'a gunmen to fly to Tehran.
In this hijack, two US servicemen were killed. After the 6 days
ordeal, the Iranian Security forces were able to bring the hijack to
an end when they disguised themselves as cleaners. "


Also here listed under 1984:

http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_hijacking


If I remember correctly, the Iranians were equipped with the HK G3 and
were producing it under license. Most likely the firearm used was a
G3, G3 SG/1 or PSG1.