Pilots with pistols

[Charliey]

well, sleeping gas might not work, but what about tear-gas? it wouldnt be very much fun, but it would work, and as long as the cockpit is sealed.

[troysvihl]

If the cockpit is sealed, what would be the point of gassing the passengers? Would it be a way of satisfying some sort of sadistic yearning?

[SARGE]

troy, good point. You don't want 200 passengers in a confined space who are tear-gassed. The break dancing would destroy the craft.

[troysvihl]

if I ever get gassed when there isn't any real threat of someone breaking into the cabin, I'm going to steal all the little mickey bottles of booze from the flight attendants.

[Charliey]

oops i wasnt very clear about what i meant.

i just meant make the cockpits airtight, but not nessesarily bullet-proof and completely secure. It might be easier to make it air tight instead of bullet-proof and completely unenterable.

[lpc300]

Guys, lets get real. Even though I believe that the events of 9/11 have certainly changed our views on airline safety and how to handle hijack situations, the thought of a pilot chosing a 'whole planeload of people vs. one flight attendant' may work in theory, but not in real life. Imagine being in that sitaution, with some deranged hijacker holding a knife to your co-worker, perhaps your friend's throat, saying he/she will kill him/her if you don't lose the gun. As a caring human (different from the 'slime' hijacker), it would be very difficult for any of us to not follow the hijacker's direction. That's what makes us different from him/her. Stonger cockpit doors/Skymarshals are a more workable answer.

[troysvihl]

As a caring human (different from the 'slime' hijacker), it would be very difficult for any of us to not follow the hijacker's direction. That's what makes us different from him/her.

I seriously doubt it.

[LoneWolf]

Originally posted by Jade Now there are people I trust to have guns!!! I totally agree these people should have firearms by thier side. I just don't trust the average 'Joe' travelling around, getting road rage or selling to underagers.

Sorry, but the 2nd Amendment guarantees everyone the right to keep and bear arms, even "underagers". I've known 16 year-olds who were more responsible than 21 year-olds. I think if everyone was armed, there would be no terrorism in this nation. We could defend ourselves and scare them away. An armed society is a safe and polite society.

It's like in hockey. The refs started making cheap calls and penalizing guys for fighting and slamming guys into the boards. What that's done is taken the respect out of the game. Now you have guys tripping and slew footing oponents instead of dropping the gloves and fighting.

Outlawing guns is just like penalizing fighting in hockey, it drains our society of respect and disarms people and keeps us helpless. Now instead of settling difference out in the open (fighting), people resort to terrorism (slew footing and tripping).

[lpc300]

The Second Amendment was written when guns were about the most destructive weapon on the planet. This is no longer true. If someone is intent on aiming a plane at a building (or far scarier, a nuclear missle at a city), a lil' old gun ain't gonna help. And guns are useless againt biological warefare. Arming everyone creates a paranoid society where 'might makes right' rules the day. It doesn't create respect, it creates fear.

[SARGE]

Well, the 2 punks trying to break into my tool shed were VERY respectful and fearful when confronted by a .44 magnum. I must admit that for one fleeting moment I had visions of my man Clint. But I held them for the cops. This scenario is more likely than bio-terrorism. Hooked on magnums works for me.

[lpc300]

Sarge,

It's because of situations like yours that I DO NOT believe that guns should be outlawed or any radical stuff like that. You showed remarkable restraint and, not only did you respect yourself (something those punks did not) but you respected your weapon. You obviously have had quite a bit of training. All I'm saying that I would not trust the average person to do the same. I have a lot of respect for how you handled yourself.

[SARGE]

Considering they couldn't speak English, they got the point. I wouldn't take a life over a shovel or lawnmower, but it's the idea that someone takes something I paid for, a personal attack so to speak. With my kind heart, I'd give (the merchandise) it to 'em if'n they gave a good reason.

[troysvihl]

All I'm saying that I would not trust the average person to do the same.

The "average" person is more than capable of using a firearm for self-defense. Indeed, what Sarge did (defend himself and his property) happens more than 2.5 million times a year in the US.

[WJWheels]

Originally posted by SARGE I wouldn't take a life over a shovel or lawnmower,

Now hold on there Sarge.... what kind of lawnmower????

[troysvihl]

lol. yeah, some of those riding ones are pretty nice.

[SARGE]

Snapper, 3.5 hp, PUSH, non-self propelled.

Back on target, so to speak, having a pilot in cockpit with a pistol may work on some unruly passengers. However, to a well-trained terrorist, his mission is no problem. He knows where the gun is and who has access to it.

[troysvihl]

Yeah, he'll know. He'll also know that to get to it, he's going to have to kick in the reinforced door. Once he starts attempting that, the copilot will have informed FAA that someone is trying to get into the cockpit and have begun descent. Military jets will have been scrambled, so there's no hope of crashing the airliner into anything since they'll blow it out of the sky before it even gets close to anything valuable.

He'll also know that even if he manages to get that door open, he'll have to squeeze through that little door and face the other pilot who'll have had a gun pointed right there for quite some time.

Even if there were four or five terrorists out there, they ain't going to get to the cockpit before that pilot runs out of ammo.


On a side note, did anyone catch Dateline tonight? They had a segment on this very issue. Seems that some pilots used to carry guns in violation of FAA rules back in the 60's and 70's when highjackings were much more common. (almost 200 highjackings in one year alone during the early 70's) Then they changed the rule to force pilots to go through the metal detectors too. (kind of a ridiculous rule, IMHO.)

[SARGE]

With God's grace, we'll never have to worry about it again. The bad guys made their statement in that fashion, and will be very patient in choosing the next target. That's the unnervy part, not knowing what or when. That in itself is another victory to them. We're a reactionary breed of cat that closes the barn door AFTER the cows got out. We currently have guys standing around airports with rifles slung upside down on their backs. That does nothing to deter a terrorist, but does make mom and pop feel better, or does it?

[troysvihl]

lol. yeah, i think those national guards are a bit of a waste too. just another pair of eyes that aren't going to catch anything the normal guards don't catch.

I don't think this is ever going to happen again either. There will undoubtedly be other attacks from terrorists, but I'm guessing nothing on the scale of 9-11. Until they get their hands on some nukes. But by that time, I'm hopine the US will be off their sh1t list.

[lpc300]

We're a reactionary breed of cat that closes the barn door AFTER the cows got out.

Just what I was thinking. Shame few think PROactively these days. Ever notice that many 'important' laws are enacted after some tragedy. Child abuse/abduction laws for example. There had been suggestions of the offender notification and other protective laws for years, but until some kids got killed, nothing happened. What a shame. Betcha lots of anti-terrorism laws will pass NOW.

[troysvihl]

It may be unfortunate that many laws are passed after the damage was realized, but think of the alternative: laws passed based on pure speculation.

Each law has a cost associated with it, and I would prefer a cost-benefit analysis before any laws are enacted. And most of the time those costs are unknown until a tragedy occurs. (I think simply because people are generally optimists.)

But think of how expensive pessimism would be. If every conceivable disaster that an imaginitive person could come up with resulted in a law being passed and the resulting expense being passed onto taxpayers/consumers. The lives and resources lost in the WTC tragedy would be nothing compared to the lives and resouces eaten up by safety precautions over decades.

You may think that I'm being ridiculous in saying that in light of the tremendous costs associated with the WTC attack, but think of how many people would not be alive today if there were no spare resources to spend on R&S for pharmeceuticals, car safey, cheaper and more pletiful food sources, etc. (those are only three examples, but I could come up with countless more.)


Often a court will use an equation called the Hand formula to determine if a safety precaution is warranted. (many times the court won't even consciously realize they're applying it, but they are) It states:

B < P * L

Where B is the cost of the safety precaution, P is the probability of an accident, and L is the cost associated with that accident. If a court determines that cost of the safety precaution is less than the probility of an accident multiplied by the cost of such an accident, then that safety precaution should be instituted.

This is just a mathematical way of stating what I said previously. Before 9/11, we underestimated the probibility (P) of a highjacker crashing a plane into a building. We also underestimated the potential costs associated with a highjacking (L). Before 9/11, most people thought the worst that a highjacker could do is to blow up or crash a plane into the ground and insurance companies and airlines valued such a tragedy at a few hundred million at the most.

But now we know better, and are adjusting the amount of resouces we expend on security in accordance with our adjustment of probibility and damages. But artificially inflating L and P based on any scenario a person can dream up will be more costly for everyone in the long run.


I'm reminded of a Simpsons episode where the citizens get afraid of bear attacks, so the government begins to patrol the land for bears with stealth bombers. Homer justifies the patrolling by pointing to the fact that bear attacks are down 100%.

[troysvihl]

BTW, during the 60's and 70's rash of highjackings, the government instituted all the security measures that have been in place up till now. There were several econmic studies that looked at the cost-benefit analysis, and they all concluded that the safety measures taken were a HUGE waste of money in light of the acctual threat posed by highjackers back then. Even if the highest rate of highjackings during the early 70's would continue every year (which was about 200 a year) and you assumed complete loss of every plane and you overvalued each human life by more than $1.5 million dollars, the costs of the safety precautions still outweighed the acctual threat posed.

Now obviously in light of 9/11's increase in the realization of how much damage can be done, those studies are meaningless in today's world. But it just shows you how much can be wasted if safety precautions are not enacted intelligently. Some of the new rules that were recently released come to mind:

No knives whatsover in any airport, even plastic ones in resteraunts.
National Guard troops stationed mostly for show and no real preventative capacity.
Having to bring a printout of your e-ticket. (like highjackers don't know how to use a printer.)
Placing an airmarshal on each domestic flight.

Now some of those are pretty insignificant from an economic point of view since they are pretty cheap to implement. (like the no-knives and having to bring a print-out for e-tickets) But the national guard and air marshal rules are going to get VERY expensive because they require a TON of man-power, and the same results could be achieved with far less costs.

[lpc300]

I agree with most of what you say. The B

• Share
  • Share this post on
  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Twitter

[lpc300]

Sorry. ISP cut out on me. Message was supposed to read:

I agree with most of what you say. The B

• Share
  • Share this post on
  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Twitter

[lpc300]

Last attempt:

I agree with most of what you say. The B

• Share
  • Share this post on
  • Digg
  • Del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Twitter

[Carl Price]

Originally posted by lpc300 Just what I was thinking. Shame few think PROactively these days. Ever notice that many 'important' laws are enacted after some tragedy. Child abuse/abduction laws for example. There had been suggestions of the offender notification and other protective laws for years, but until some kids got killed, nothing happened. What a shame. Betcha lots of anti-terrorism laws will pass NOW.

I agree completely! I don't know what terrifies me most, terrorists, or my government trying to protect me from them.