OK, what the hell has happened to the Brits?

In article ,
(StellaStar) writes:

Michael has a point; are the armed security guards going to be of the quality
of mall rent-a-cops and other police academy failed wannabes?


It doesn't matter.

Their presence makes the planning of a hijacking impractical. So long as the
impression is that they are there, unidentified, somewhere in the cabin, there
is no way to successfully plan a takeover, so there will be no attempt.

The rent-a-cop can then snooze away on the flight and we are safe by way of
deterence. The best deterrents never are activated and those used have already
failed.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

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

"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?

"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.

"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?

"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?

"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?

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

"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.

"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.