[OT] USA - TSA Obstructing Armed Pilots?

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.

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

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 MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"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

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

"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

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

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.

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

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