So the pilot has a gun -

[shadowsource]

And the terrorists are slicing up stewardesses, so the pilot feels it necessary to try to rescue them. As with what seems to have happened on 9/11, the pilots open the cockpit door. Fragmenting bullets fly around. In some cases, the pilot is overwhelmed by the Gold's Gym-trained terrorists, who now have weapons with whch to shoot passengers who try to seize or at least crash the plane.
I'd rather they land the thing ASAP in the arms of a SWAT team. They should be sitting at the controls, flying into security, and not carrying weapons that hijackers could use. As of now, I'm confident that passengers won't easily allow themselves to be used as collateral damage again - unless they're staring at frag bullets and stun guns.

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

I tend to agree with you. But what about armed undercover officers on board? Does the risk of the hijackers taking their guns outweigh the security presence offered by the officers?

 

[Calamity Jane]

I tend to agree with you. But what about armed undercover officers on board? Does the risk of the hijackers taking their guns outweigh the security presence offered by the officers?

This was my original thought in the days after the attack. But again, why give the terrorists a weapon?

I do like the idea of a sort of closed circuit television aboard the plane. The pilots can see what's going on in the cabin without ever leaving the cockpit and if things get squirrely out there, can make a distress call and land the damn thing.

I agree that people are less likely to stand by and just let planes be hi-jacked and used in this way. We don't take victimization well.

 

[miles]

I heard the pilots on El Al use rubber bullets that penetrate hijacker scumbag flesh but can't penetrate any part of the airplane itself.

 

[Kasha]

Personally, I think that Lockeed should re-vamp the passenger aircraft. I think the pilots should have an entrance to the plane just like the passengers. One for them and one for us. They could have a pilot area with a toilet and enough room for a couple pilots for transcontinetal flights. I mean, that is a sure fire way to keep people out of the cockpit and pilots out of the passenger area of the plane.

I like the idea of armed undercover officers, but my thought is how easy is it to impersonate one...couldn't terrorists think that scenario up..

I think I will be driving where I want to go from now on...well for quite a while anyhow. I don't think I could get on an airplane now without having a major panic episode. It wouldn't be that I would be afraid of my plane getting hijacked, it would be that my mind was full of images that those people had to be seeing in their last moments. It would be really hard to deal with.

 

[shadowsource]

Undercovers are worth the risk, I think -

I tend to agree with you. But what about armed undercover officers on board? Does the risk of the hijackers taking their guns outweigh the security presence offered by the officers?

A trained marshall, whose identity is known to no one, is an impediment to hijackings. But given that they already want to jack the pilot, arming highly skilled, indispensable individuals who have better things to do is insane! I say this knowing that many of them are Air Force alumni. They should stay in the damned cockpit, communicate sensibly with the ground, and save the passengers if that's possible. They should stay out of harm's way. Without them, the passengers are toast.

 

[Pokerman]

According to today's USA Today, there are 35,000 domestic flights a DAY. Are there 35,000 people trained to be marshalls? Pilots armed themselves regularly until 1987, when they were required to go through secruity checkpoints.

They need to retro-fit the aircraft will double reinforced doors so that even a small plastic explosive would not blast the door to the cockpit open. THEN arm the pilots. Many pilots flying our planes started in the military. They are well qualified to carry a firearm. Let them do it.

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

I heard the pilots on El Al use rubber bullets that penetrate hijacker scumbag flesh but can't penetrate any part of the airplane itself.

I would take leave to doubt that; rubber bullets that would be hard enough to penetrate clothing and flesh and cause incapacitation would probably have to be hard enough to penetrate portions of the aircraft.

If I were to chose a projectile for a situation were I didn't want overpenetration, or penetration of hard surfaces, I would probably choose something like the Mag-Safe or the Glaser. These are projectiles that contain shotgun shot inside a prefragmented copper jacket. When they strike a hard surface they usually completely fragment - the same in flesh. There are downsides, specifically that they sometimes plug up with clothing and fail to fragment becoming a non-expanding projectile.

STG

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

They need to retro-fit the aircraft will double reinforced doors so that even a small plastic explosive would not blast the door to the cockpit open. THEN arm the pilots. Many pilots flying our planes started in the military. They are well qualified to carry a firearm. Let them do it.

Being in the military, even as a combat pilot, hardly qualifies a person to know what to do with a firearm in a hostage or siege situation. In fact, many law enforcement officers are not qualified to handle such a situation, and an airliner hijacking presents a lot of special circumstances.

I am not necessarily against arming pilots, but I would not wish it done without specialized training and a lot of thought given to the ramifications. Not all airliner cokcpit crews would need to be armed either; if some significant percentage were armed then that would probably give some hijackers pause. It probably would not phase a suicidal bomber though, but it might stop what happened at the WTC.

STG

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

Re: Undercovers are worth the risk, I think -

A trained marshall, whose identity is known to no one, is an impediment to hijackings. But given that they already want to jack the pilot, arming highly skilled, indispensable individuals who have better things to do is insane! I say this knowing that many of them are Air Force alumni. They should stay in the damned cockpit, communicate sensibly with the ground, and save the passengers if that's possible. They should stay out of harm's way. Without them, the passengers are toast.

Agreed - tactically they would be foolish to leave the cockpit - there is nothing they could really do anyway. Any arming of the cockpit crew would have to be combined with good specialized training and strict instructions not to leave the cockpit under any circumstances during a hijacking. The firearms would have to remain in the cockpit too.

STG

 

[miles]

I couldn't find any info about El Al pilots using rubber bullets and don't recall where I heard it. They do however, carry pistols, and I'm sure their airport security is way ahead of us. Been a long time since one of their planes has been jacked.

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

I couldn't find any info about El Al pilots using rubber bullets and don't recall where I heard it. They do however, carry pistols, and I'm sure their airport security is way ahead of us. Been a long time since one of their planes has been jacked.

El Al has a lot more security than just armed personnel on the aircraft - mostly pre-emptive; Israel has a pretty good intelligence agency, El Al screens its passenger rather heavily and strictly and they have a lot of procedures to hopefully prevent likely hijackers from getting on the planes in the first place. Once a hijacker is on the plane with any kind of weapon or bomb you are kind of in a screwed situation - so it is better and more effective to make sure they don't get there in the first place.

Israel's policy of no negotiation and forceful rescues probably has some effect on planned hijacks also.

STG

 

[Gilly Bean]

How bout just a few tranquilizer guns instead? They go nighty nighty, no damage done to the plane, and they land and have the sleepy people escorted to a jail.

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

How bout just a few tranquilizer guns instead? They go nighty nighty, no damage done to the plane, and they land and have the sleepy people escorted to a jail.

Not really practical; most tranq cartridges that would be effective for a human would require a firearm larger than a handgun, which is ungainly in an aircraft. Even a bullpup rifle would be a little too large IMO. I also think that there would be a problem with penetrating clothing and getting a tranq that was fast acting enough to be effective as a deterrent.

Some kind of tranq gas that would fill the passenger cabin would probably be better, but would probably give a mad bomber a chance to set off a bomb, could cause problems to passengers with respiratory problems and the gas might leak into the cockpit.

No, I think the entry resistant door along with possibly arming the cockpit crew (with training) is the least problem free and most practical solution - if there is one.

STG

 

[lobito]

having just flown both internationally AND and nationally yesterday coming back home, I will tell you what I personally saw. That is that at NO time did I see anyone identifying them as airline workers, go through security points, they simply were allowed to walk around ALL security points.

PLUS, I was not only allowed to carry my laptop computer, Digital cameras, video camera and Disc player on board, but tehy only checked to see that ONE item actually worked, and was NOT a bomb. This was very disheartening to me, as it told me the people STILL are NOT doing their full jobs.

R

 

[Dillinger]

Well - first of all there are guns/ammo that will not pierce the plane - fragment bullets, etc. In fact if you watched the news reports today they were talking about exactly that.

Secondly - as far as I'm concerned - all these measures are trivial - the confiscating knives, etc... the most secure and necessary measure is putting a trained security person on each and every plane - Coast Guard, or whatever...

And no - that's not impractical - how many banks are there in this country? How many of them have AT LEAST one armed security guard? I don't care how much they have to raise the price of airfare (or have the government tax airfare to pay for it) - it needs to be done.

 

[Dillinger]

CNN article about arming pilots - http://www.cnn.com/2001/TRAVEL/NEWS/09/25/rec.arms.pilots/index.html

John Wiley, an aviation instructor with a major airline says that:

"popular notions about the risk of bullet holes in an airplane were overblown.

"In fiction, airplanes explode when a bullet hits a window. But it's just that, fiction," Wiley said. "There might be lost pressure, but one bullet hole wouldn't cause an explosive depressurization. It would just cause a loud whistling through which the air would pass."

Capt. Duane Woerth:

"Woerth, in his congressional testimony, emphasized that extensive training would be mandatory before pilots could carry guns. In the meantime, there are options under consideration. Cockpits already come equipped with crash axes, which could be used as weapons, the pilots union suggested. Or pilots could use stun guns or guns equipped with specialized bullets.

The projectiles would "disintegrate on impact" to ensure the safety of aircraft, he said. But they could do serious damage to the human body, which is fine with the pilots union in the case of hijackers.

 

[Dillinger]

One more thing... did you hear about Al Roker - the NBC Weatherman?

He was flying recently - after the supposed increase in security. He did say that the security was so tight it was just short of a full body cavity search and they confiscated his razor and a few other items... BUT...

As soon as he passed through security he walked into one of the stores in the terminal and was able to buy all the same things that they confiscated and walk onto the plane with them!

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

Well - first of all there are guns/ammo that will not pierce the plane - fragment bullets, etc. In fact if you watched the news reports today they were talking about exactly that.

I rarely watch news as in my experience they usually do a poor job in actually getting it right. In those few times they have reported on something in which I was personally there, or as part of my position in the military I was privy to know what actually happened because I saw the reports or knew people who were there, they invariably not only got it wrong, but they got it very wrong. Same goes for when they report about something about which I know something about, which includes some small knowledge about firearms and terminal ballistics.

Projectiles designed to have a high probablility of fragmentation, whether they be something like MagSafes or something like a sintered metal bullet (many multiple dustlike particles pressed together) that disintegrates upon impact, all have pros and cons - including failure to disintigrate in some circumstances, failure to penetrate, and failure to cause an incapacitating wound in others. As Doctor Fackler and others in terminal ballistics will tell you that there is no magic bullet that will always perform the way intended under all circumstances.

It is not so much that I am disagreeing with your statement as I am trying to add some perspective.

Secondly - as far as I'm concerned - all these measures are trivial - the confiscating knives, etc... the most secure and necessary measure is putting a trained security person on each and every plane - Coast Guard, or whatever...

For the most part I agree; the visible measures taken are probably no more effective than before and many are just plain laughable. I think that some of these measures are intended to give the appearance of an increase in security, partly for the purpose of restoring public confidence, partly to deter terrorists.

And no - that's not impractical - how many banks are there in this country? How many of them have AT LEAST one armed security guard?

Not very many any more - I can't remember the last time I went into a bank and saw a security guard, and then only in the very large ones.

I don't care how much they have to raise the price of airfare (or have the government tax airfare to pay for it) - it needs to be done.

With all due respect to the security guards, most of these are what my friend who was in USAF flight line security calls cardboard police; sometimes at AF bases they would put up a little 3 foot cardboard figure at the entrances for people to stop at the gate. These guards are more of a facade to meant to give the appearance of security than anything else. Those that do have any LEO training are usually retired LEOs, but most have no LEO training at all being private "Rent a cops".

What would be needed for airliner security would be highly trained, highly skilled, probably well paid, very fit and of at least moderately high intelligence - as such they would be a lot more expensive than a bank security guard.

Now whether the government/public and/or the airlines are willing to pay for this expense I don't know, but it is not a simple or easy solution and not as effective as might be thought; what is such a guard going to do against 5-6 hijackers? What is he/she going to do about a bomb in the luggage hold - especially if he/she doesn't know about the bomb?

I think we need to keep in mind that not all future hijackings/terrorist attacks are certain to consist of someone taking over the plane and flying it into some landmark - a properly timed bomb in a plane with some luck might accomplish the same thing, and planes may not even be involved. Also, what about cargo planes? Infiltrating someone into Fed Ex or UPS and having them fly that plane into some large building would have about the same effect.

STG

 

[Barb Dwyer]

To answer your question: I wouldn't mind seeing a formally trained law enforcement officer, e.g. a federal marshal. However, I would not be pleased, encouraged or feel safe and secure if I saw a rent-a-cop/security officer.


Just a thought here...

While it is a given that we will increase security in our airports and on our aircraft once again, I am wondering if the following suggestion has ever been thought of or given any consideration whatsoever.

Let me preface my idea by acknowledging that it will cost a great deal of money to accomplish but, in my opinion, would be well worth the investment.

Why don't aircraft manufacturers such as Boeing or Airbus or McDonnell Douglas, etc., consider a radical design shift. I think it would behoove them to create a bulkhead (wall) separating the cockpit from the rest of the airplane. This design would mean that the pilot, co-pilot and navigators would enter the cockpit through a separate outside door. They would have their own bathroom and refrigerator. No need for the flight attendants.

This way, the physical barrier would make it impossible for any hijackers to break into the cockpit to take over in-flight.

Naturally it would be cost-prohibitive to retrofit current aircraft- or at least entire fleets. But why not design new planes with this feature? Does this make sense or am I overlooking something important?

Naturally, a flight attendant would need to be trained in mechanical and technical instruction for the rest of the plane. This, in conjunction with federal marshals on every flight could go a long way to preventing future hijackings.

I need some feedback. Is it impossible? Would it work? Is it just stupid?

With this feature, it would be impossible for anyone to breach the cockpit. The pilots should never leave the cockpit. If trouble arises, their first course of action should be to land as quickly as possible.

Whoever suggested closed circuit tv and a cell phone connection for the black box recorder on the ground also makes sense. And an armed marshal would be a good deterrent but even with their training and skills, I would still be concerned with the possibility of a bullet piercing the skin of the plane and depressurizing the cabin. Rubber bullets seem to be a viable option. And the marshals should be trained in martial arts as well. Why not arm them with some incapacitating tool such as mace- to counteract the 5-6 possible hijackers?

STG, as far as the banks as concerned, in my community there are now off duty police officers in lieu of security guards in every single bank in town. For some unknown reason, we have become the bank robbery capital of the country the last 2 years. (although it wouldn't surprise me to learn that these incidents are being carried out to finance terrorist operations)

The suggestions here are not just in the event of a future hijacking with the intent to force a jet into a landmark. It is for the peace of mind of the traveling public as well. We need some semblance of security if we are to resume normal behaviors.

These are measures that ought to be implemented on general principles.

I think you are correct that future acts of terrorism are likely to be of different means and methods. I believe the element of surprise is the single greatest advantage the terrorists have against us. Keeping us off guard is key in their torment. Repeating behaviors is a slight probability.

I think we should continue to monitor and upgrade counter terrorist strategies in the areas of BW, CW and nuclear warfare. We must increase security at laboratories, chemical manufacturing plants, farms, hospitals and nuclear facilities. We also need to step up security at our water treatment plants and food processing plants.

We need to protect our potable water sources, our fisheries, ranches and agricultural areas. We need to eliminate the ease with which criminals can infiltrate our classified government agencies and universities.

I am not advocating ceasing any freedoms. I am merely suggesting that we arm ourselves with knowledge. Retain our composure. Be more guarded. Think. Plan. Strategize. All of that seems more practical than being reactionary or being impotent in the face of the next wave of attacks.