|
|
|
|
|
| Tell me what you think about flight crew using guns in the ****pit?
Posted: 10/1/2007 5:11:53 AM |
The drag component will not crush the aircraft. The aircraft does not rely upon the cabin pressure to hold it's shape. If that were true, World War II dive bombers would never have lasted through the first dive.
I never said that the drag alone would crush the aircraft. I simply said that without pressure inside the plane, it would become more susceptible to damage caused by drag (which is a very important variable that your balloon theory is missing).
And by the way, a passenger style jumbo jet and a WWII dive bomber are built completely different, and are made to for completely different circumstances. In fact, there are very few military planes in history that used a pressurized cabin. Not all aircraft are designed to need them. So if you are going to argue, at least do it intellectually. | |
|
| Tell me what you think about flight crew using guns in the c0ckpit?
Posted: 10/1/2007 2:20:29 PM | Yes I'm still alive and without the need to use a parachute.
Its common when an airline leases an aircraft for them to take it on a flight test (like test driving a car) and they simulate a rapid decompression to make sure everything functions as it should if the aircraft was to suffer a rapid or explosive decompression in flight.
As I said its not plessent and can cause burst ear drums etc if your unucky or have a cold but Id rather that then certain death. | |
|
| Tell me what you think about flight crew using guns in the ****pit?
Posted: 10/1/2007 3:20:55 PM | On our aircraft, the only way a terrorist could breach the****it would be if the door were opened during flight. And the only time that happens is when a pilot needs to use the lavatory.
Flight crews are notified if one of the pilots in an FFDO, or if we are getting a passenger that is licensed to carry a weapon, such as law enforcement.
The pilots are secured behind their door. It's the Cabin Crew that faces the dangers, however we're not allowed any weapons. | |
|
| Tell me what you think about flight crew using guns in the ****pit?
Posted: 10/1/2007 5:43:34 PM |
if the door were opened during flight. And the only time that happens is when a pilot needs to use the lavatory.
Good point. I had not considered that. I suppose I am thinking more in terms of military aircraft and private aircraft where there is no luxury of an on-board lavatory. If it came to the decision of having guns in the c0ckpit or having the standard personal equipment for bathroom functions, I'd say it would be better to seal the c0ckpit rather than have gun battles inside the aircraft.
Military (or any other aircraft) does not require a pressurized cabin for flight. The only reason for it is so the passengers are comfortable, with normal sea level pressures on their ear drums and so they don't all have to wear oxygen masks. The pressurized cabin has no effect on the shape, integrity, drag characteristics or any other flight parameters. A dirigible is different but we are talking about a commercial jet with a rigid frame that can very easily fly with no passengers and no pressurized cabin.
In essence, it isn't so much that the cabin is "pressurized" it is more a matter that the cabin remains relatively the same whether it is on the ramp or at altitude. The only thing that basically changes is that the outside air pressure reduces. In a perfect plane, you could just seal the cabin and the interior pressure would remain the same no matter what altitude. It isn't like you need to inflate the aircraft.
When you puncture that seal, obviously that internal pressure, relative to the much lower outside pressure, will have the effect of a balloon trying to burst but the skin is strong enough to withstand an actual "explosion." To use the beer can analogy, a controlled decompression would be like opening a beer. We hear the pop that is like a small explosion and then the pressures are equalized. A bullet hole analogy is more like puncturing the top of the can with an ice pick. It isn't going to explode and it isn't going to change its shape. It is just going to take a bit longer to equalize. | |
|
| Tell me what you think about flight crew using guns in the ****pit?
Posted: 10/1/2007 5:57:19 PM | | I think the cabin crew should be trained and armed with tasers so that they can be a better first line of defense for the safety of the passengers. After all flight attendants' true purpose is to assure the safety of passengers in an emergency situation. | |
|
| Tell me what you think about flight crew using guns in the ****pit?
Posted: 10/1/2007 6:04:09 PM | Here is just a suggestion... To maintain the discussion here of the particular weapons we might propose to prevent the plane from being taken over, why don't we take the aeronautical engineering debate on cabin pressure here:
http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts8350814.aspx
That way we can get on with the discussion of the actual weapons. I really don't know how a taser works or what effect it has (as example). I'd like to learn more about that. Seems a good idea to go that route as far as weaponry is concerned. | |
|
| Tell me what you think about flight crew using guns in the ****pit?
Posted: 10/2/2007 3:23:14 AM | I am always amazed at the fantasies that people have about guns and the effectiveness of guns.
Let's assume we give guns to pilots and train them to shoot.
Naturally we wouldn't expect them to be as proficient as a say, a federal marshal but they can shoot reasonably straight.
All of the airplanes on 911 had at least 4 hijackers each.
Does the pilot have a responsibility to save the airplane ? Especially knowing he's probably outnumbered 4 to 1 ?
If the pilot fails to save the airplane, who's responsible, him or the airline ?
Do all passengers now have a reasonable expectation that the pilot will try to save the airplane and their lives along with it ? Or, will all passengers be required to sign consent forms releasing the pilot and the airline from legal action in case of a hijacking ?
What exactly is the pilot supposed to do if he decides to take action ?
Where are the hijackers ? Can he tell the difference between a hijacker and a passenger ? Is he supposed to just come out and start blazing away like Dirty Harry ?
If the pilot shoots your mother in the head, are you going to just let it go, or are you going to sue ? You bet you will !
What if the hijackers have a bomb and threaten to blow up the plane if the pilot doesn't give up his gun ? They will think of that don't you suppose ?
Can the pilot pull out his gun for other reasons than a hijacking ? How about against an unruly passenger ? Can the pilot hold a gun to the head of an unruly drunk passenger and tell him to sit down and shut up ?
There are a million scenarios I can think of for why this is a bad idea.
Stop fantasizing about guns ! | |
|
| Tell me what you think about flight crew using guns in the ****pit?
Posted: 10/2/2007 8:10:09 AM | The FAA looks at the cabin flight crew the same way Deceased does........expendible.
The airlines are only out for profit.
They are not interested in spending any more money than what they have to. And giving us self-defense lessons, taser guns, spear guns, crossbows, etc......, costs them the money they don't want to spend.
Granted, you can spend your own money to learn how to defend yourself. But for the most part, if a passenger spazzed out, other passengers would interviene and beat the crap out of them.
And we're also trained to look for suspicious behaviors.
Since I'm prior military, I know how to defend myself. | |
|
| Tell me what you think about flight crew using guns in the cockpit?
Posted: 10/2/2007 4:25:14 PM | Assuming the cockpit door is breached, there is no way that unsuspecting flight crew will have enough time to assess the situation, decide that it is a life or death situation, determine that the use of a firearm may be required, remove his/her seat belts, retrieve it from its secure storage compartment, move to a position where they can safely shoot, and get a shot off, before the intruder will be on them.
Law enforcement agencies have done numerous experiments to determine how far a police officer must be from a perpetrator with a knife, to be able to draw his weapon and fire two shots, and stay out of range of the knife. They determined that an alert, wary officer with his hand on his holstered gun needs to be 22 feet away from the target and backing up.
Distance from flight deck door to crew seat? About three feet. And there are documented cases of police officers getting into gun battles at a distance of seven feet and both parties emptying their weapons without either one getting hit.
If the door is not breached, then the pilots are better located at the controls than attempting a rescue.
As far as arming the cabin crew, you can't give them personal weapons to carry because they have other duties to carry out and cannot be expected to also maintain care and control of a firearm. If the weapons are in a proper secure storage, it is easy for a hijacker to wrest it from the crewmember while they are getting it out. Anyone can be disarmed.
Air marshals have ammunition that is made of sintered copper or copper coated ceramic powder that disintegrates on impact with a solid object.
As far as non-lethal weapons go, you still have the plight of what to do until you can land with an injured, or pissed off violent person who has nothing to lose. If the aircraft is mid Atlantic, you have three hours to fly before you hit land.
It seems that many posters in this thread would expect the resolution of such a scenario to have a movie like assurance that all will be well in the end. Probably not a realistic outcome. | |
|
| Tell me what you think about flight crew using guns in the cockpit?
Posted: 10/3/2007 12:17:37 PM | The****it doors are reinforced and extremly hard to breach since 9/11, until last week I didn't relise how secure they are.
We had an aircraft land a few days ago and one of the drinks\meal karts from the rear of the aircraft was not latched in so when the pilot engaged the thrust reversers it came down the entire length of the cabin at high speed and hit the****it door causing a huge amount of damage but not breaching it.
If someone was to attempt to breach it it would take them considerable time. | |
|
| Tell me what you think about flight crew using guns in the cockpit?
Posted: 10/3/2007 3:11:18 PM | | Flight attendants are trained to recognize suspicious people, and who better to be armed with tasers so that they can knock out the terrorists before they can even get to the pilots? To me, it's worth it for an airline to spend money on arming flight attendants to ensure that in the event of a terror attack, they can provide an effective first line of defense. Not every flight has an air marshal. Every passenger flight has flight attendants (with the exception of some small commuter flights--which I avoid like the plague, but that's another subject) so it would make sense to arm them and give them a chance to defend the passengers. Flight attendants are required by law for your SAFETY more than anything else. I don't like to hear that "glorified waiter" nonsense because without flight attendants, more people would die in emergency situations. I also believe that high fitness standards should be put in place for flight attendants for the purpose of being able to handle situations like terrorists or having to carry a passenger who would have died in an aircraft fire. Flight attendants have a very important and responsible job, and should be treated as such. | |
|
| Tell me what you think about flight crew using guns in the cockpit?
Posted: 10/3/2007 3:19:55 PM | Flight attendants are trained to recognize suspicious people, and who better to be armed with tasers so that they can knock out the terrorists before they can even get to the pilots? To me, it's worth it for an airline to spend money on arming flight attendants to ensure that in the event of a terror attack, they can provide an effective first line of defense.
That tazer can be also taken away and used by anyone, terrorist or irate passengers. I think a far better way is for flight attendants to not only be trained to recognize threats , but to be trained in basic close quarter self-defense. Looking at something like the Russian martial art of Systema might be a good start.
It's a method where close quarter combat is concentrated on, and control of the opponent is stressed.
Systema (Russian: ???????, "The System") is a Russian martial art. It is designed to be highly adaptive and practical, training using drills and sparring instead of set kata. It focuses mainly on the six body levers (elbows, neck, knees, waist, ankles, and shoulders), while also teaching pressure point application and takedowns. Systema is often advertised as being a martial art employed by some Russian Spetsnaz units.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systema
It's a course I'm seriously considering taking, as we have a place in Montreal that offers it.
With this type of training, and practical sparring practice, one can greatly increase the chance of mastering an opponent and controlling him quickly. | |
|
| Tell me what you think about flight crew using guns in the cockpit?
Posted: 10/3/2007 3:40:30 PM |
Flight attendants are required by law for your SAFETY more than anything else.
Yes. This has always been my understanding. In fact, when flight attendants were first used on commercial flights, they all had to be trained nurses. Today, I believe their "customer service" role is more to give them something to do as their main function is to manage emergency situations.
I suppose the airlines just want us to feel like they are simply there to serve us drinks and food and pillows to keep us calm but that is not really why they are there, as you've said.
I also believe they are quite capable of being armed and handling that situation if it became necessary. Just for the record, my comment earlier about them being "expendable" was merely in jest. | |
|
| Tell me what you think about flight crew using guns in the ****pit?
Posted: 10/4/2007 4:26:30 PM | | I'm for it. If I were a pilot, I'd have a Walther P-88 on me. Tasers are useless. Heavy clothes keep them from penetrating , and being on drugs-angel dust/etc-keep them from having any effect when they do hit. If you have reason to shoot someone, you have reason to kill them, so tasers, rubber bullets, etc, are stupid, useless, and something I will never use. The people I shoot deserve what they get. The last one was a drugged out home invader who picked the wrong home to invade, and the wrong person to attack in that home. He won't make that mistake again. | |
|
| Tell me what you think about flight crew using guns in the ****pit?
Posted: 10/4/2007 5:11:48 PM | In your house , do what you want to do.
30,000 feet in the air, flying at 400-500 MPH , unless you are training on a regular basis specifically for aircraft protection, I don't want some "James Bond" wannabe taking out the plane while protecting it. 
Aircraft and their passengers don't like to be shaken nor stirred.
The objective is to improve the situation, and to not worsen it. | |
|
| |
| Tell me what you think about flight crew using guns in the ****pit?
Posted: 10/8/2007 2:31:14 PM | | Forget martial arts. Even Bruce Lee could not chop/kick down a terrorists' bullet, or block a bomb blast. Then, too, with a hundred people between you and Mr. Evil, how do you reach him, to kick/punch him, before he shoots his gun, or explodes his bomb? There is a time to every purpose under Heaven...including a time to kill. BTW, If I'm the pilot of the plane, I will carry and use weapons whether passengers like it or not. Those who don't like it can open the door, and exit straight down. James Bond is a weenie. NO one who wants to live long enough to go on a second mission is ever going to take a .25 ACP anything on his first mission. Bond prefers .25 ACP Berrettas. I prefer 9mm Walthers, and .357 Magnum Smith & Wessons. I've trained with handguns since I was seven years old. I don't pull it unless I use it, and when I use it I don't miss. If all airline pilots were armed, and had the training I do, there would never be another plane hijacking. | |
|
| Tell me what you think about flight crew using guns in the ****pit?
Posted: 10/8/2007 2:35:34 PM | | Four hijackers...OOOhhh. Armed with a carbine, Audie Murphy charged a German machine gun nest with seven armed Nazis in it...and lived...killing all seven Germans. Terrorists want to talk, first, to instill fear, and praise Allah, etc. One well trained gunman can shoot four terrorist dead in about a second and a half...if he knows when to shoot, rather than talk. | |
|
| Tell me what you think about flight crew using guns in the ****pit?
Posted: 10/9/2007 6:32:01 AM |
If all airline pilots were armed, and had the training I do, there would never be another plane hijacking.
That may be, but plane crashes might increase substantially....
As for the validity of self-defense, security is ( above all) an attitude and state of mind. The ability to defend one's self is based on many factors, and having the ability to do so without weapons is critical (since you may not have that option sometimes).
Relying on it is good, until you find it's not the best solution to the current situation you are facing.
Something like Systema is a practical close quarter martial art. It's not Bruce Lee, and in fact one can see both good and bad examples of Systema on sites like YouTube. Some of them are almost comical, in how bad they are.
Systema , taught properly, can be invaluable. Remember, even well armed Russian spec ops forces are trained in it - and they have all the guns they need and more. That's no accident, btw.
What is Systema?
Systema is a realistic combat style of fighting with real-life, rather than sport, application. It involves a unique, high speed, elliptical open-hand striking system, kicking, and defense on the ground. Unlike many Asian styles, Systema has no predetermined fighting stances, but teaches you to defend yourself against attackers from any position. In addition, students are trained in the use and disarming of weapons, improvised weapons, as well as combat in non-traditional situations such as fighting from a chair or while in a car.
The Systema Philosophy
The study and practice of this discipline involves a complete system of physical and spiritual health, relaxation, and courage in the face of all forms of adversity. But most of all, it involves a philosophy of life, peace and decency seldom seen. It disciplines its students to relax while striking, rather than focus to generate maximum power, allowing you to strike at unusual and unexpected angles, to smile in combat rather than adopt a fierce visage or announce your intentions with a blood curdling yell. There are no fixed training patterns or combinations of movements, all training is based on the reality that unexpected things happen in combat.
The purpose of this discipline is not merely to prepare for violence, but to gain a positive and strong mental state, to have a healthier and more limber body, to be more relaxed in a stressful society and to live a decent and peaceful life.
http://www.incredible-adventures.com/russian_ops1.html
All spec ops people are trained in hand to hand combat, for good reason.
Systema offers advantages not found in other martial arts, and is perhaps the best one I can imagine for such a scenario.
Remember, the Flight 93 passengers and crew had zero martial arts training - and almost took back the plane from the hijackers. Had at least a few had Systema training, it might have ended moments after starting. | |
|
| Tell me what you think about flight crew using guns in the ****pit?
Posted: 12/1/2007 2:16:20 AM | Interesting but still when outnumbered a gun is best. I just accidentally ran across this and remembered this thread. Remember I was talking earlier about the Glaser Safety Slug?
With this in mind, the United States Federal Air Marshals Service tested and used the Glaser Safety Slug extensively in the 1970s and 80s on board commercial passenger aircraft to defend against hijackers.[1] Published reports indicate that Air Marshals are now issued SIG-Sauer P229 pistols with a 12 round capacity firing conventional jacketed hollow point ammunition in .357 SIG caliber.[2]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A frangible bullet is one that is designed to disintegrate into tiny particles upon impact to minimize their penetration for reasons of range safety, to limit environmental impact, or to limit the danger behind the intended target. An example is the Glaser Safety Slug.
Frangible bullets will disintegrate upon contact with a surface harder than the bullet itself. Frangible bullets are often used by soldiers engaging in close quarter combat to avoid ricochets that could kill or injure innocent bystanders or other friendly forces. Frangible bullets are still considered just as deadly as standard lead based bullets as long as the bullet makes contact before it fragments. A good example where frangible bullets might be used is by Homeland Security agents who are required to carry guns on aircraft and don't want to risk the accidental puncturing of the aircraft pressurized cabin in the event of an incident.
Ironically that .357 SIG round seems to have more penetrating power than even the traditional .45 ACP which was favored for so many years by the Feds. So the air marshalls must have figured another way around the worry of depressurization. Or they know something we don't. Presumably the system can handle a small leak of a .357 sized round. That's not really a big hole when you're only talking about 15 PSI. I have an air compressor that can take several minutes to leak 30 gallons down from 120 to even 60 PSI with an airgun held full open. That's ten times the pressure. Plus I am sure a plane's system is bigger than my hobby sized air compressor. But if you're interested there is an article link at the bottom of the wikipedia.org article on Glaser Safety Slug or Frangible bullets that discuss it. Frankly I am not worried about it. | |
|
| |
| Tell me what you think about flight crew using guns in the c0ckpit?
Posted: 5/24/2008 5:39:53 PM | | The bullets used on aircraft by the air marshalls wont over penetrate they use special rounds that have 100% fragmentation. When hitting soft tissue they penetrate but once it hits bone or metal it fragments no penetration. Really shreds the crap out of your target. Plus they use a low velocity load its good time :) | |
|
| Tell me what you think about flight crew using guns in the ****pit?
Posted: 5/24/2008 5:53:21 PM | "Nipoleon"
Any pilot that wishs to carry a side arm on a plane has to go through training to use the fire arm. Also part of the training is that the pilot defends the cabin, he doesnt go out like rambo to take out the terrorists he stays in the cabin. The gun is so that if anyone attempts to break in they can be stoped. Once a hijacking or attempted hijacking occours the pilot will land the plane, the gun is to defend the****it until the co-pilot can land the plane.
Before Sept 11 the standard procedure for hijackings was to cooperate with the terrorists, thats why they took the planes so easily. The terrorists would make thier demands and give the military or the FBI's HRT team time to act. Now however we have found that the terrorists no longer make demands but use the planes as weapons of mass destuction so cooperation is no longer an option. If the terrorists say they have a bomb unfortunatly your dead anyways if they get to the****it they are still going to blow it up.
Yes you do seem to be able to come up with all sorts of scenarios but thats because you have no idea what the standard operating procedure is for a pilot to carry a fire arm on board a plane. Anything you think of scenario wise involving a gun was already thought of, but some people with alot more education and a better understanding of what the current risk assesment deemed it a viable risk.
Just out of curioustiy how do you feel about an individuals right to bear arms? I bet its a no lol | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
