If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Andrew Rowley wrote: "You don't want guns on aircraft at 30,000 feet. The air marshals have frangible bullets, of course. But what's to stop the terrorist from getting into a shootout with the air marshal? The terrorist won't have frangible bullets. Then you have the specter of a bullet piercing the airplane's skin, explosion decompression and all that entails, even unto passengers being sucked out of the aircraft." The statement, of course, went unchallenged by the host. What would you challenge? The fact that you don't want guns on board? The possibility of explosive decompression? What's better, explosive decompression or a fuel-loaded airplane being slammed into a busy downtown area by a terrorist who is able to gain control of the airplane? JKG |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"Jonathan Goodish" wrote in message ... What's better, explosive decompression or a fuel-loaded airplane being slammed into a busy downtown area by a terrorist who is able to gain control of the airplane? Fuel-loaded? The effected flights would be departing foreign airports bound for the US. In the case of the British we're talking about trans-Atlantic flights. Wouldn't the fuel load be rather light by the time they're able to strike a US target? |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"Cub Driver" wrote in message ... I was driving home from Cannon Mountain yesterday afternoon, and listening to NRP (National Partisan Radio) as I went. The subject of air marshals came up. The Talking Head was a London-based security consultant. He said in effect: "You don't want guns on aircraft at 30,000 feet. The air marshals have frangible bullets, of course. But what's to stop the terrorist from getting into a shootout with the air marshal? The terrorist won't have frangible bullets. Then you have the specter of a bullet piercing the airplane's skin, explosion decompression and all that entails, even unto passengers being sucked out of the aircraft." The statement, of course, went unchallenged by the host. And yet it raises several questions in rational minds. The question, "But what's to stop the terrorist from getting into a shootout with the air marshal?", concedes that terrorists can get weapons aboard aircraft. That being the case, what's the downside of having an armed air marshal aboard? That it may cause passengers to be sucked out of the aircraft? Please. If the terrorists gain control of the aircraft to use as a weapon the passengers are all doomed anyway. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"Andrew Rowley" wrote in message ... What would you challenge? The fact that you don't want guns on board? The possibility of explosive decompression? I have seen it said that a bullet hole through the skin would not cause explosive decompression. I can believe that is true if it is a small hole, from relatively perpendicular to the skin. What if the bullet was at a shallow angle to the skin however, as if it had been fired along the cabin? Then I would imagine the hole would be more like a long tear, and explosive decompression seems more likely. There is a lot of pressure there, remember Comets, JAL, Aloha airlines etc. Are the passengers better off if the terrorists gain control of the aircraft to use as a weapon? |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"Michael" wrote in message m... Would you, as PIC, be comfortable flying an airplane where a passenger who is absolutely unknown to you is armed while you yourself are unarmed? Would you, as PIC, be comfortable flying an airplane where if a passenger who is absolutely unknown to you is armed his purpose is something other than counterterrorism? |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"Martin Hotze" wrote in message ... I avoid everybody carrying a weapon. And as long as I can decide it (!) nobody with a weapon is entering my house, my office or sitting in my car. And I turn away from everybody carrying a weapon, I also avoid beeing too close to cops carrying a weapon. What do you do when those that carry guns don't give a damn what you decide? |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Wdtabor wrote:
Now the British airline pilots are considering refusingto fly if there is an armed security guard on a flight, citing the danger of a gunshot in a pressurized airliner. http://www.guardian.co.uk/ukresponse...863275,00.html What? Are they using "Goldfinger" as a training film there now? Or has hoplophobia just turned their minds to goo? Don All this article states is that people have some concerns about having guns on board. These are legitimate concerns. It does not mean it will or will not happen. 1) Having guns on board makes it unnecessary for terrorist to smuggle guns on board. Now they just have to get the ones that were carried on board by sky marshals. 2) A gun shot can rupture the pressurized cabin. When you live in a society (British) where police officers dont carry guns, and do so quit successfully. Having concerns is only natural. Addressing all concerns and using a carefully thought out plan is highly advisable. John Roncallo |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"John Roncallo" wrote in message . com... 1) Having guns on board makes it unnecessary for terrorist to smuggle guns on board. Wouldn't the terrorists have to know which flights carried air marshals? Now they just have to get the ones that were carried on board by sky marshals. Wouldn't they have to identify the air marshals to do that? If they can't identify the marshals or formulate a tactic to obtain the marshal's weapon, wouldn't they be in the position of having to get their own weapons aboard? 2) A gun shot can rupture the pressurized cabin. So what? That would just mean there's a bullet-sized hole in the cabin in addition to all the other holes in the cabin. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message ... The flights aren't all one-way. Sooner or later, they take off again. Putting the air marshals on board protects them in both directions. But aren't they protected at the US end by the TSA? If terrorists are able to get weapons aboard aircraft in the US it means federal screeners are no more effective than private sector screeners, and we all know that's not the case. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What happened at PAE this Saturday | M | General Aviation | 1 | February 1st 05 08:02 AM |
What happened at PAE this Saturday | M | Owning | 1 | February 1st 05 08:02 AM |
Was the EFA coalition a mistake for the Brits? | John Cook | Military Aviation | 10 | August 27th 04 08:03 PM |
Whatever happened to ? | Anne | Military Aviation | 48 | May 26th 04 06:47 PM |
MARKET GARDEN ALL OVER AGAIN? WHAT THE HELL? | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 8 | February 8th 04 09:37 AM |