Originally posted by eyelikeart
Try not to turn this into a political discussion.
Originally posted by Raid
Oh this isn't political, it's about effective security measures.
For example have they determined that cargo planes pose a risk? Sure they could have the same destructive power as any other plane, but how would a terrorist get on board? Pack themselves in a crate and try posing as a package, or slip on to the tarmack as a courier employee? I hope that they would spend more time on how the terrorist got on the plane then just saying "Oh well it's a possibility, so lets give everbody guns".
Let's say this would be terrorist does get on board, are guns that effective? If you arm pilots that means all the "action" is going to be in the cockpit, which can be pretty confining and packed full of important instruments vital to the operation of the plane. Is the pilot/co-pilot going to be able to draw his weapon and shoot his attacker in the time it would take the terrorist to cross a distance of 3 meters or less? What if the pilot did get a shot off? What damage is the bullet going to do to the plane? Even if the pilot hits his (lets assume unarmored) attacker the exiting bullet from the attacker's body could puncture the skin of the plane causing the cockpit to depressurize.
In this case I actually hope they are not telling us about proceedures for entering and exiting the cockpit during flight. Assuming that there is cause to leave the cockpit during flight I would armor the door, make it lock automaticaly and put a spy hole on it. Then when you need to leave the cockpit you leave your key behind, and knock to get back in. If there is a badguy on the other side of the door that would at least give the armed pilots time to draw their weapons and radio in an emergency.
....sorry for the semi-rant, but I'm a realist and these security messures are getting mind-bogglingly stupid.
Originally posted by Raid
For example have they determined that cargo planes pose a risk? Sure they could have the same destructive power as any other plane, but how would a terrorist get on board? Pack themselves in a crate and try posing as a package, or slip on to the tarmack as a courier employee? I hope that they would spend more time on how the terrorist got on the plane then just saying "Oh well it's a possibility, so lets give everbody guns".
Let's say this would be terrorist does get on board, are guns that effective? If you arm pilots that means all the "action" is going to be in the cockpit, which can be pretty confining and packed full of important instruments vital to the operation of the plane. Is the pilot/co-pilot going to be able to draw his weapon and shoot his attacker in the time it would take the terrorist to cross a distance of 3 meters or less? What if the pilot did get a shot off? What damage is the bullet going to do to the plane? Even if the pilot hits his (lets assume unarmored) attacker the exiting bullet from the attacker's body could puncture the skin of the plane causing the cockpit to depressurize.
In this case I actually hope they are not telling us about proceedures for entering and exiting the cockpit during flight. Assuming that there is cause to leave the cockpit during flight I would armor the door, make it lock automaticaly and put a spy hole on it. Then when you need to leave the cockpit you leave your key behind, and knock to get back in. If there is a badguy on the other side of the door that would at least give the armed pilots time to draw their weapons and radio in an emergency.
....sorry for the semi-rant, but I'm a realist and these security messures are getting mind-bogglingly stupid. [/B]
Originally posted by mactastic
Shouldn't the first line of defense be impenatrable cockpit doors? If we are going to arm the pilots, fine; but lets see if we can't make those guns a moot point by denying anyone who isn't supposed to be there access to the cockpit.
Particularly on passenger flights, the cockpit should not even be accessable from the cabin. Then the terrorists would know they could kill all the passengers they wanted and it still wouldn't get them any closer to the cockpit. If there is a door that locks, there would be a lot of pressure put on the cockpit crew to open-that-door-or-the-next-guy-gets-it.
Do you mean a gun? Because it shoots hot sharp metal very fast and it made for killing people.why are people so afeerd of an inanimate piece of metal, plastic and wood?
People are hijacking your plane with little knifes. Beat the **** out of them. [/B]
I wasn't talking about explosive decompression I'm talking about mask-dropping, structure testing air decompression. Shatter a window with a bullet probably wouldn't be anthing like the "James Bond" decompressions, and some planes have stood up remarkably well durring rapid pressure loss, but it be one problem to avoid in flight.Originally posted by haganah
Even shooting many times through the wall of the plane isn't enough to depressurize it. Urban legend or something.
Hence the spy hole (or maybe CCD cameras) at the door.But this is just a guess the main point I was trying to make is that:Originally posted by Frohickey There won't be any stewardesses saying that there is a terrorist laying in wait for the co-pilot to open the cockpit door and relieve his bladder.
Sure you can't protect against everything but that's why I said the door should be armored and locked.Originally posted by Frohickey Plus, there is no guarantee that the terrorist would not be armed either. Lots of stuff are shipped in cargo planes. Knives, pressurized gas cannisters, guns, rifles, chemicals, pretty much everything.
Alright you may have me here, cause I'm no close quarter combat specialist, but I think it would stand to reason that if the pilots were rushed by an attacker they would not be able to draw, turn and fire if taken by surprise. But (depending on your definition of close quarters) a gun is not your friend when the attacker is right on you.Originally posted by Frohickey Also, since the cockpit would be the center of action, the pilot with a gun is in a better position to keep control of the cockpit than if he doesn't have one. You see, the terrorist would have to approach the cockpit to gain control of it. And with a gun, close distance is your friend if you are the one that is shooting, and the enemy has to close the gap, makes for easier targets.
I've got an explanation for that coopdog, simply put the "game" has changed. Prior to Sept 11th hijacking meant you might die, but were probably going to land in Cuba and only be harmed if the hijackers felt they weren't being taken seriously. So the odds of passenger survival (even with a sucessfull hijacking)were pretty good. So while you may spend several hours/days/weeks in hell, you had a good chance of living through it... and this is what probably was going through the minds of some of those poor souls that fatefull day.Originally posted by coopdogWouldn't you do ANYTHING to stop a terrorist on your plane? It's very odd to me why no one stopped the terrorists on the any of the planes on 9/11. They had box cutters, a 3 inch blade! People say, well they didn't know that they were going to crash them. So what? People are hijacking your plane with little knifes. Beat the **** out of them.
Originally posted by Frohickey
The idea that I had about impenetrable cockpits are ones where there is no door or entry into the cockpit unless its directly from the outside of the airplane. Pilots enter the cockpit through the window, much like fighter pilots enter their cockpits via the canopy window. That way, a terrorist would have to do some high speed high altitude stunt in order to get into the cockpit.
Originally posted by coopdog
Do you mean a gun? Because it shoots hot sharp metal very fast and it made for killing people.
Wouldn't you do ANYTHING to stop a terrorist on your plane? It's very odd to me why no one stopped the terrorists on the any of the planes on 9/11. They had box cutters, a 3 inch blade! People say, well they didn't know that they were going to crash them. So what? People are hijacking your plane with little knifes. Beat the **** out of them.
Originally posted by Frohickey
Behind every gun that has fired, was a person that fired it, whether intentional or not. Think about that.
...
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Guns never go off accidentally?
- Han Solo"Uh ... had a slight weapons malfunction. But, uh, everything's perfectly all right now. We're fine. We're all fine here ... now ... thank you. How are you?"
Yes other than the occasional accidental firings when droped jolted or overheated. And remember guns don't kill people, people kill people (but guns make it a heck of a lot easier). Using the same argument that means we should be able to by fuel air bombs or anthrax and other nasty implements. Hey! I'm a nice guy and I would only use them for self protection and hunting... awwww common!Originally posted by Frohickey
Behind every gun that has fired, was a person that fired it, whether intentional or not. Think about that.
Originally posted by Raid
Yes other than the occasional accidental firings when droped jolted or overheated. And remember guns don't kill people, people kill people (but guns make it a heck of a lot easier). Using the same argument that means we should be able to by fuel air bombs or anthrax and other nasty implements. Hey! I'm a nice guy and I would only use them for self protection and hunting... awwww common!![]()