pilots refuse to fly with gun loons onboard

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 17:35:31 GMT, AH#49 "Asshole™#49"@ your.net
wrote:

Bogart wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 15:01:43 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:

Yep, and that's what happened on the 4th plane. What I want to know is how
having a sky marshal on board would have made matters worse. Would those
passengers have died twice?

How would having a SM on board have helped?

Possibly by making sure that the Sky Marshall sits in first class, and
gets to shoot the first person he sees that attempts to enter the
Cockpit by force or without the "secret knock."

Sitting in first class just makes it easier for the hijackers. They'll
slaughter all the first class passengers first.


The 4th plane didn't know
their fate and the fate of the other planes until long after the
terrorists had taken over the cockpit and killed the pilots. What
does the SM add that would have changed their final outcome?

He would be armed and would have (I hope) shot the ****ers dead trying
to get inside.
After all, who but somebody that was incredibly stupid would try to
enter the cockpit besides flight personnel?

You're forgetting the mindset of before 9/11. Without the knowledge
of the fate of the other hijacked planes, the 4 hijackers had total
control of that plane with box cutters. One hijacker said he had a
bomb strapped to himself. Does the SM take the chance and shoot? I
don't know.

And no, a bullet that pierces the hull of a plane will not suck all the
passengers out through it like Bond, James Bond said it would in
"Goldfinger" when he was chatting to Pussy Galore.

I don't believe I implied as such. There is ammunition you can shoot
inside a plane which will not even penetrate the outside of the
fuselage.

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
gonline.com...
Thomas Heide wrote:

You should increase airport security first and then try to figure out
how
an unexperienced pilot can fly all over New York and make a sightseeing
tour around the Statue of Liberty without beeing noticed at all before
you
think about arming sky marshalls.

Since that's not what occurred, why should we try to figure that out?

The pilot was "noticed" very quickly. In fact, the "problem" was that he
flew into a tightly controlled airspace (class B, in case you're familiar
with this) w/o clearance from the controlling agency. By definition, he
was seen as soon as he did that.

Separate from that - actually, he was probably outside of the controlled
airspace at this point, but it depends upon his altitude - he circled the
statue. Scores of pilots, commercial and private, do this every [fair
weather] day. I did it myself a few hours after this fellow, in fact.

[In fact, I flew a route not too dissimilar to his. The difference: I did
it with approval from Laguardia Tower.]

I'm by no means excusing his incursion into the airspace w/o a clearance.
That's a "no no", and somewhat dangerous besides (there's a reason why
this
airspace is more tightly controlled than other airspace). But he was
noticed, he was intercepted, and there's not a damned thing wrong with
circling the statue.

And how impertinent are you to simply postulate a "law" like the above?

Each nation is free to regulate its own airspace. This amendment isn't a
law that affects anything outside our airspace, so I'm not sure why you
think of this as "impertinent". Your country can mandate clowns on
flights
through its airspace, should you wish.

I really pay my tribute to the pilots making a statement like that.

From what I've read, the pilots merely want to have established certain
protocols involving C&C. To my mind, that seems like a smart idea. I
assume that the nations already putting armed officers aboard aircraft
already have these established.

- Andrew


The text of the letter outlining the protocol principles is below. as pilots
we should be supporting fellow pilots in wanting to remain in command.
http://www.balpa.org/intranet/Letter2.pdf

after all Part 91 says the pilots is solely responsible. all I can see is
the commanders of aircraft discharging their legal duties.

"Richard Hertz" wrote in message
t...

"Andrew Rowley" wrote in message
...
"Richard Hertz" wrote:

There is a lot of evidence that shows that violent crime diminishes
when
people are allowed to defend themselves (read - arm themselves)
Places that ban handguns usually experience higher rates of violent
crime.

Yes, people will always try to do bad things, and wouldn't it be nice
to
be
able to DEFEND yourself against them? I happen to think so.

This is a load of crap. Handguns are very rare in Australia. The
papers here are talking about a gangland war that has broken out here.
Large rewards are being offered by the police to catch the people
involved. This is a result of something like 24 people being killed in
the last 6 YEARS. When 24 people in 6 years is significant, I don't
think the rate of violent crime is high.

It is not a load of crap. See John Lott's papers and book(s) studying the
subject.
If you were a criminal and wished to perpetrate a crime - would you choose
an area where you were very certain law-abiding citizens had no way to
protect themselves, or an area where you were likely to end up on the
receiving end of justified defense?

As a law-abiding citizen I know where I would like to be.

Also, handgun laws are inneffective (especially here in the US).
Criminals
are criminals. They have handguns regardless of the laws.



Americans seem to have no concept of what it is like to live in a
largely gun free society. They view safety as having a gun, and hoping
that if it comes to the worst they will be able to shoot the other guy
before they get shot. In Australia, you don't have a gun and go around
pretty confident that no-one will get shot at all.

No - I would like to defend myself though. Switzerland has low violent
crime rates - and as far as I know most households own firearms.

Ignorance abounds. In Switzerland they have a very small standing army and
every man is basically a reservist. By law he is required to have easy
access to his gun in case of mobilisation. Hence it is kept at home but it
is strictly for national defense.

Is that not the original reason for the second amendment. The right to bear
arms was a national defensive measure not an excuse for every jerk to own a
gun and play cowboys and indians.

"Andrew Rowley" wrote in message
...
"Richard Hertz" wrote:

It is not a load of crap. See John Lott's papers and book(s) studying
the
subject.

I don't know of the papers, I am just speaking from the experience of
living in a country where guns are uncommon.

Also, handgun laws are inneffective (especially here in the US).
Criminals
are criminals. They have handguns regardless of the laws.

In the US, yes. I think that is largely a result of the fact that so
many people have guns, and therefore they are easy to come by.

In the UK handguns are used by criminals and Americans
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/w...re/3360577.stm

The criminals tend to use them for shooting each other as they compete.

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 10:38:54 GMT, Eddy_Down
wrote:



Bill Smith wrote:

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:51:13 GMT, Dave Whitmarsh
wrote:


On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 13:01:03 -0800, Bill Smith
wrote:


On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 18:50:49 -0000, "nick"
wrote:


"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots' union
called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."

"Airline pilots should not take off with marshals on board, the British
Airline Pilots' Association (Balpa) has said."

"Capt Granshaw defended pilots' right to take action and said: "Our advice
to pilots is that until adequate written and agreed assurances are received,
flight crew should not operate flights where sky marshals are carried."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3357309.stm



LOL!. They want ONLY terrorists armed! This is, all at once, hilarious
and tragically stupid.
Bill Smith

Your inability to comprehend basic English is a huge concern, Bill old
chap.


"Written assurances". Of what? They want to be told that trained
personnel are going to be used rather than just passing guns out to
the passengers? They want to be told that if they lose control of
their aircraft it will be shot down and there might just be a few
remedies to try before then?


It's called X-ray machines at the airport check-in terminals, doofus.


Sure, all they have to do now is get enough of them and then actually
use them. All that deals with is weapons brought on by passengers, not
those stashed by aircraft "service" workers.


Bill Smith

nick wrote:

"Eddy_Down" wrote in message


Box cutters could easily be concealed in shoes, up the rectum or vagina

,

It's like Mort came from a completely different planet, isn't it?


When he hunted naked, he had to keep his knife somewhere.

What about the sheath clipped onto his bow tie?

--
Chris.
http://****france.com/

New Zealand tubbies.
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/nztubbies.jpg

Vengeance is a hamburger that is eaten cold, writes Georges Dupuy in
Liberation.

No wonder the French military is a band of sissies, look at where they
get their stock from. (800k mpeg file.)
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/frenchfighters.mpeg

funny mp3
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/horserace.mp3

The new Three Stooge's
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/happyfamily.jpg

Two clowns.
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/groggyclown.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/nickclown.jpg

nick wrote:

"LIBassbug" wrote in message


Box cutters could easily be concealed in shoes, up the rectum or vagina

,


It's like Mort came from a completely different planet, isn't it?

On our planet rectums and vaginas have small openings.


Not after Mort's stuffed them full of razor blades...

Florida.

--
Chris.
http://****france.com/

New Zealand tubbies.
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/nztubbies.jpg

Vengeance is a hamburger that is eaten cold, writes Georges Dupuy in
Liberation.

No wonder the French military is a band of sissies, look at where they
get their stock from. (800k mpeg file.)
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/frenchfighters.mpeg

funny mp3
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/horserace.mp3

The new Three Stooge's
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/happyfamily.jpg

Two clowns.
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/groggyclown.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/libassbug/nickclown.jpg

Bogart wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 17:35:31 GMT, AH#49 "Asshole™#49"@ your.net
wrote:

Bogart wrote:

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 15:01:43 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:

Yep, and that's what happened on the 4th plane. What I want to know is how
having a sky marshal on board would have made matters worse. Would those
passengers have died twice?

How would having a SM on board have helped?

Possibly by making sure that the Sky Marshall sits in first class, and
gets to shoot the first person he sees that attempts to enter the
Cockpit by force or without the "secret knock."

Sitting in first class just makes it easier for the hijackers. They'll
slaughter all the first class passengers first.


Let them try then.
I know for a fact that I can dispatch a **** stain with a knife a lot
faster then he can me, being armed with a gun.
After all, THEY don't know who is the Sky Marshall!
Regardless, all the more reason for the pilots to be armed as well,
just in case.



The 4th plane didn't know
their fate and the fate of the other planes until long after the
terrorists had taken over the cockpit and killed the pilots. What
does the SM add that would have changed their final outcome?

He would be armed and would have (I hope) shot the ****ers dead trying
to get inside.
After all, who but somebody that was incredibly stupid would try to
enter the cockpit besides flight personnel?

You're forgetting the mindset of before 9/11. Without the knowledge
of the fate of the other hijacked planes, the 4 hijackers had total
control of that plane with box cutters. One hijacker said he had a
bomb strapped to himself.

Like terrorists are trustworthy?
Don't make me laugh laugh laugh.

Does the SM take the chance and shoot? I
don't know.

Exactly.
Until such an attempt happens again, we will never know.
I say we arm the people to the teeth.



And no, a bullet that pierces the hull of a plane will not suck all the
passengers out through it like Bond, James Bond said it would in
"Goldfinger" when he was chatting to Pussy Galore.

I don't believe I implied as such. There is ammunition you can shoot
inside a plane which will not even penetrate the outside of the
fuselage.

I am sure there is.
But as long as it penetrates the skull and or any other body part of
the mad men that wish to steer a plane into the masses or a nuke power
plant below, so be it!
The flight is doomed or survivable.
I say have people aboard that can shoot the ****ers that hijacked
while in it, VS blow it out of the sky as a last resort.

"nick" wrote in message
...
"Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots' union
called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board."

"Airline pilots should not take off with marshals on board, the British
Airline Pilots' Association (Balpa) has said."

"Capt Granshaw defended pilots' right to take action and said: "Our advice
to pilots is that until adequate written and agreed assurances are
received,
flight crew should not operate flights where sky marshals are carried."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3357309.stm

That's fine with us. BTW, President Bush won't let you into US airspace
without a marshal on board.
Happy (local) flying.

Ed Stasiak wrote:

Bill Funk wrote

The only way a terrorist could get behind that locked,
bullet proof door is for someone to open it.
The British pliots (or rather, their union) seem to think
that having the pilots open that door is a really good idea.

Wouldn't the pilots have to open the door at some point
to go to the bathroom or for the stewardess to serve them
food and coffee?

Why not?
Your point?
With SIMPLE safe guards, that is a SUPER simple and easy task to
accomplish without risk to passengers or the flight crew, let alone any
target below even IF that system was breached.