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 |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
"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). |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
|
#56
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
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 MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
"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... |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Bush Pilots Fly-In. South Africa. | Bush Air | Home Built | 0 | May 25th 04 06:18 AM |
Joint German-Israeli airforce excersie (Israeli airforce beats German pilots) | Quant | Military Aviation | 8 | September 25th 03 05:41 PM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |
Israeli Air Force to lose Middle East Air Superiority Capability to the Saudis in the near future | Jack White | Military Aviation | 71 | September 21st 03 02:58 PM |