Can't we just have a fly at your own risk airline?


PDA






30-06 lover
December 21, 2007, 09:10 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071221/us_nm/security_airports_dc

I have flown just once, and I only did because my F-I-L paid for it. I hated it. Total BS IMO Wonder what would happen in RTC was allowed in airports or on planes?

If you enjoyed reading about "Can't we just have a fly at your own risk airline?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Standing Wolf
December 21, 2007, 10:31 PM
A team at the Harvard School of Public Health could not find any studies showing whether the time-consuming process of X-raying carry-on luggage prevents hijackings or attacks.

Isn't that the same "school" that consistently "proves" guns cause crime?

That said™, government programs virtually never accomplish their stated goals, but do provide pay checks for public trough feeders.

txgho1911
December 21, 2007, 11:10 PM
It's called General aviation.
You buy, rent or lease your own plane. Hire an instructor. Take weeks of classroom instruction before you ever fly. Fly for many hours under instruction before you solo and still may be many more hours before you can be licensed.

You better hurry though. I am sure the rules have changed and getting stricter at every turn.

JT1JTI
December 21, 2007, 11:18 PM
OK, I'll play with a related question.

Who here on THR would fly on a commercial airline that allows concealed carry for all CCW permit holders?

Kacerdias
December 21, 2007, 11:22 PM
A CCW friendly airline? Where I don't have to check my sidearm as cargo and be herded like cattle onto a tiny regional jet?

Sign me up. :D

Zundfolge
December 21, 2007, 11:26 PM
Who here on THR would fly on a commercial airline that allows CCW for all CCW holders?
My sister in law is a stewardess, which means that I can get buddy passes and fly for free most of the time.

I would pay twice the regular retail price to fly on a commercial airline that allowed me to walk in wearing my CCW piece and I wouldn't care if they served drinks or even had bathrooms.

BridgeWalker
December 21, 2007, 11:48 PM
A firearm friendly airline would be cool, but not enough to make me willing to fly. I love flying, but generally prefer to drive. My last esperience flying was possibly enough to put me off of it for life. Apparently TSA employees find it amusing to yell at heavily pregnant women to move through the line faster while holding onto bags and removing shoes.

I still cannot figure out how it is possible to hold onto luggage while walking while removing ones footgear. It is utterly mystifying to me. The whole pregnancy thing was just another twist. I came dangerously close to throwing a punch (and subsequently getting arrested) at one particularly rude screener.
My husband was probably *really* resisting the urge to strangle a few people. Nah, firearm friendly wouldn't do it for me.

Being permitted to remain fully attired, including footwear and a jacket or sweater might come close. And this was before they banned liquids...

CleverNickname
December 21, 2007, 11:57 PM
All I'll say is that I've really come to enjoy driving on vacation instead of flying. The ability to be armed is just one small advantage of driving. There's also the fact that there's no crowds of people, there's more legroom, my baggage doesn't get lost and the scenery is much more interesting up close than from 35,000 feet.

Josh Aston
December 22, 2007, 12:15 AM
We wouldn't have TSA (or DHS or a multitude of other feel good agencies) if the airlines had just been CCW friendly to begin with.

Regolith
December 22, 2007, 12:15 AM
..I wouldn't care if they...even had bathrooms.

That might get hairy on long flights. Someone might have an "accidental discharge." :uhoh:

BridgeWalker
December 22, 2007, 12:19 AM
The ability to be armed is just one small advantage of driving.

I dunno about that one. I'm still trying to figure out how to get West out of Michigan without travelling through Wisconsin or Illinois.

Dope
December 22, 2007, 12:19 AM
Pssh, no such thing as an accidental discharge. If you weren't smart enough to go before you left, drank too much on the flight, or can't hold it long enough, then you were negligent.

It's only an AD if you're incontinent.

Dope

CrawdaddyJim
December 22, 2007, 12:34 AM
I dunno about that one. I'm still trying to figure out how to get West out of Michigan without travelling through Wisconsin or Illinois.

EASY you just go straight south until you get to Florida and as a bonus you get to see all the people that left MI before you........:D

Florida the most western of the southern states.

Richmond
December 22, 2007, 01:11 AM
I saw the title of this thread and I thought it referred to the airline headquartered in my home state - Northwest :rolleyes: or as it is known here "Northworst".

I would definitely fly on a CCW friendly airline. Like many here, I have gotten more into driving as air travel becomes increasingly ridiculous. Driving is fun, you can carry tons of gear, you can carry expensive gear without worry about loss or damage, you can travel armed with the appropriate permit/s.

Even the coasts are not a big problem - you have to figure flying eats a day. From MN you can get to LA with 2 serious days of driving. I head to LA every February for two weeks and this year I plan on driving. I drove out in August and it has the extra benefit that I can take my Harley for fun! :)

Guitargod1985
December 22, 2007, 02:46 AM
Who here on THR would fly on a commercial airline that allows concealed carry for all CCW permit holders?

Where do I sign?

Ultrachimp
December 22, 2007, 03:07 AM
Even though I don't CC, I'd feel safer going on a CC-friendly airline. I'd ask that the airline issue soft-point rounds though, since it'd be bad if it went though the skin of the plane

WeedWhacker
December 22, 2007, 03:58 AM
I'd ask that the airline issue soft-point rounds though, since it'd be bad if it went though the skin of the plane

We're talking 30,000 feet, not outer space. Getting sucked out a hole ala Alien 4 is not physically possible, nor is it going to endanger the structual integrity of the plane.

I can't afford to fly general aviation/charter flights, but that'd be the only way to get me to fly ever again. I'm so sick of the Thousands Standing Around and their stupid, ineffective rules. Nope, not flying until I get treated as a responsible person.

BigBlock
December 22, 2007, 04:01 AM
A few months ago I caught part of an old episode of Perry Mason. Perry was on a plane and the guy behind him dropped his briefcase, and his gun fell out and slid towards Perry. He picked it up and said "here, you dropped this" and gave it back. :D

I think we just need to get rid of airline security all together. It doesn't stop anything. They are routinely tested and always fail, and there's always some story on the news about a guy accidently bringing his gun onboard, or smuggling a monkey in his hat, etc....

If someone really wanted to plan an attack and had a terrorist group behind them, it would be childs play.

Jamie C.
December 22, 2007, 04:33 AM
"Can't we just have a fly at your own risk airline?"

I think NASA is about as close as you can get to that description.... Wouldn't get me on anything they send up on a dare. :o

As for a CCW airline... sure, sign me up. Provided they don't cost 3 times as much due to insurance.



J.C.

Owens
December 22, 2007, 08:44 AM
AirCCW? Sure. I'll fly that one in a heartbeat.

DDude
December 22, 2007, 11:26 AM
I would definitely fly on a CCW friendly airline. Like many here, I have gotten more into driving as air travel becomes increasingly ridiculous. Driving is fun, you can carry tons of gear, you can carry expensive gear without worry about loss or damage, you can travel armed with the appropriate permit/s.

Bolded portion got me chuckling. Try driving 500-600 miles daily around people who think 40 tons of truck can stop on a dime without thought to themselves and their passengers as they cut in front of you.

The last time I flew was shortly after the 9/11 hoorah and the kneejerk reaction of the .gov to increase security. It was the last time I ever take my boots off when it wasn't someones house. Flying is for the birds.

Roswell 1847
December 22, 2007, 02:07 PM
I remember an old All in the Family episode in which Archie Bunker suggested that the best way to stop hijackings was for the airline to pass out pistols when the passengers boarded the plane. He said no one would pull a gun if he knew everyone else was packing heat.

A friend was on a bus that was temporarily hijacked in New York back in the late 60's, probably an escaping felon situation. The hijacker was waving his gun around and a beat cop outside nailed him in the head through the closed window. Blood spattered my friend, he was that close.

As for gunplay inside an airliner though you aren't likely to get sucked out through a small hole a small hole can become a big hole in short order at 500+mph. Entire upper fuselages have been stripped back like a convertable top when the airflow caught a crack in the skin, and many WW2 airmen were sucked out of bombers that weren't even pressurized if tears up forward increased the pressure inside by directing airflow aft.

At minimum a blown window would result in people scrabbling for oxygen masks and a few people succumbing to embolisms.

I'd recommend revolvers with alternating loads in color coded chambers for specific situations.
A plastic bullet at close range can kill you deader than four o'clock, and the US Military has used them for target practice, so they can be accurate.

Also
In the seventies a company was making concealable parachutes that you could wear under a suit coat. They were as compact as concealable body armor. Not much good in the regular air disaster scenario, but if a plane broke up in mid air it would be useful.
If a plane I were on broke up in mid aid I'd be climbing an invisible ladder like Wily Coyote all the way to the ground. No more effective but a more dignified ending than flapping your arms like a bird.

Truth is though you can reduce your terminal velocity by spreading out your arms and legs, reduces your impact speeds by about sixty percent over the head down lawn dart landing position.

Jamie C.
December 22, 2007, 02:53 PM
Roswell, I saw a documentary on a plane crash in South America, several years ago, where the plane broke up over the rain forest/jungle...

It seems the wind velocity was enough to strip the clothing off of every single person on the plane before they hit the ground. Not a single body was recovered wearing any clothing.

So I doubt having a parachute of any kind would do a person much good, even if they had some amount of forewarning and were prepared for the...de-planing?



J.C.

NukemJim
December 22, 2007, 02:59 PM
At minimum a blown window would result in people scrabbling for oxygen masks and a few people succumbing to embolisms.


:confused: Exactly what kind of embolisms are you referring to please?

Truth is though you can reduce your terminal velocity by spreading out your arms and legs, reduces your impact speeds by about sixty percent over the head down lawn dart landing position

It's been a long time since I jumped out of a perfectly good airplane so my memory may be rusty but as I recall terminal velocity in the position described above with arms and legs spread is still around 120 MPH. A few people have lived through such a landing but the percentage is extremely small.

From my limited understanding most modern commercial airliners have the equivalent of 1-2 square feet of openings in the pressure compartment. Adding a few bullet holes is not going to make much of a difference.

And to quote an instructor I've had (who used to train AirMarshalls) when asked about bullet holes in the fuselage "Plug the holes with the terrorist bodies" :D

NukemJim

Soybomb
December 22, 2007, 03:10 PM
I'd love to fly on an airline that had no screening and no questions, just walk in, show your ticket and take your seat.

Eric F
December 22, 2007, 03:13 PM
No Absolutly not. I prefer to look at it like this, I can drive on snow and Ice as I know my skills however its the other Idiot I have to watch out for. Aircraft react poorly to bullets its not so much rapid depressureization I worry about but rather a broken hydrolic line or even an electrical assist hydrolic line. I say no guns but give me my knife back please. I do not like the TSA AS THE GOVERNMENT HAS FEDERALIZED A BUNCH OF MONKEYS! However in the air I can live with no guns.

doc2rn
December 22, 2007, 04:49 PM
If we ever get a CCW air, that will be my exclusive carrier, especially if they hand out glass rounds/ non lethal rounds as you board the plane. That would be the friendliest flight ever! I honestly think CCWers go out of their way to avoid the confrontation. Currently I ask a dentist friend for rides if he needs the flight time and I need the ride.

Roswell 1847
December 22, 2007, 06:07 PM
Quote:
At minimum a blown window would result in people scrabbling for oxygen masks and a few people succumbing to embolisms.

Exactly what kind of embolisms are you referring to please?
Sudden decompression can cause ruptured or swollen blood vessels in the lungs. Even very slow adaptation to the pressure levels of mountain tops can produce embolisms.
You can look up the testing done on Fighter Pilots in the 60's and 70's. The immediate problems were anoxia but embolisms could either show up immediately or cause death days afterwards.

Embolisms are more extreme in rapid decompression of divers. Also lungs can rupture and fill with blood if the victim tries to hold their breath.

Probably only a small percentage of passengers would be affected to these extremes, some people have weaker blood vessels than others.



Quote:
Truth is though you can reduce your terminal velocity by spreading out your arms and legs, reduces your impact speeds by about sixty percent over the head down lawn dart landing position

It's been a long time since I jumped out of a perfectly good airplane so my memory may be rusty but as I recall terminal velocity in the position described above with arms and legs spread is still around 120 MPH. A few people have lived through such a landing but the percentage is extremely small.

Yep I've read that the Terminal velocity in the head down arms to the side position can exceed 210 miles per hour.

Falling or even parachuting from 35,000 feet without oxygen could be fatal before you hit.
Some German sailplane pilots bailed out when a massive updraft prevented them from landing during a competition. Unfortunately the updraft also carried them higher in their chutes. They went up and down for hours and when the bodies were recovered they were frozen solid.

Like I said one little hole makes no difference but one little hole in the wrong place can become a huge missing section of the aircraft skin at 500+ MPH.

And as has been mentioned here and in other threads theres a huge amount of wiring and hydraulic tubing running between the inner and outer skins.

Heres a massive blow out at only 24,000 feet
http://www.ec.erau.edu/cce/centers/edwards/SF335/CaseStudy1Pres.htm

A crack in the skin is the suspected culprit.

plexreticle
December 22, 2007, 06:14 PM
The only reason was have the homeland insecurity sham is because people put up with it.

If everybody refused to fly (which would never happen) alot of this useless security showboating would go away.

Roswell 1847
December 22, 2007, 08:32 PM
If everybody refused to fly
Nobody is forcing people to fly, its purely a matter of choice.

alot of this useless security showboating would go away.

And if nobody drove cars there'd be no need for traffic cops.

WeedWhacker
December 22, 2007, 10:59 PM
Sudden decompression can cause ruptured or swollen blood vessels in the lungs. Even very slow adaptation to the pressure levels of mountain tops can produce embolisms.

Please compare to the hazards of sudden impact with a large skyscraper at approximately four hundred miles per hour.

Roswell 1847
December 23, 2007, 10:08 AM
Please compare to the hazards of sudden impact with a large skyscraper at approximately four hundred miles per hour.

No need to since a bullet designed to to lose energy quickly can kill without damaging the aircraft. As I mentioned plastic bullets, as well as plastic filled metal jacketed bullets) with lethal close range ballistics have been around for decades.
I haven't suggested non lethal or less than lethal weapons.
Also I suggested that multiple loads be available in the same gun, if necessary to shoot through a hostage or several seat backs to get the goblin the standard rounds would be available.
Besides which hitting a canefield or smacking into the ocean at terminal velocity because your aircraft lost its upper skin is pretty darn difficult to shrug off.

PS
I just remembered that in my collection I have a 70's air marshall issue .38 special "manstopper' round. Its a hollow based wadcutter loaded backwards in the casing, this one has a red laquer sealant like old military issue cartridges.
The idea was that the manstopper would still flaten in the body even at low velocities and didn't have the energy to do much damage to the thick aircraft windows or penetrate the inner skin to damage the plumbing and wiring.

The british used a similar round before WW2 but just for its wounding capability to stop fanatical tribesmen.

zoom6zoom
December 23, 2007, 10:32 AM
It seems the wind velocity was enough to strip the clothing off of every single person on the plane before they hit the ground. Not a single body was recovered wearing any clothing.

If no one survived, how do we know that this wasn't just a mass initiation into the mile high club?

If you enjoyed reading about "Can't we just have a fly at your own risk airline?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!