[telomerase]

But this modest proposal is OK with everyone:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031002/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/shootdown_exercises_3

[4v50 Gary]

Amtrak looks better every day. TSA won't allow pilots to be armed yet the government would shoot down a passenger jetliner.

[AZRickD]

"U.S. Military Trains to Shoot Down Jets "

Well, if you're not just a little radical with your position, you're not uncomfortable enough.

Rick

[BrokenPaw]

On another issue, that of security at U.S. ports, Eberhart said the military and other federal agencies plan to set up command centers at major ports where "everyone involved in security is in one place in an operations center taking notes," Eberhart said. The first two such centers are in San Diego and Norfolk, Va., he said.(Emphasis mine)
Not precisely related to the original reason for the thread posting but... does this perhaps seem a bit shortsighted to anyone else? That everyone involved in security for major ports like Norfolk would be all gathered in one place? Terms like "single point of failure", "decapitation attack", and "all your eggs in one basket" come to mind.
-BP

[Gmac]

Charlie Foxtrot for sure.

[TarpleyG]

"U.S. Military Trains to Shoot Down Jets "

Well I, for one, am still in the camp that believes the airliner over PA was shot down by a fighter. No way we will ever know as the .gov would never admit to it.

GT

[Grey54956]

Personally, I think that the standard safety gear available to the airline passenger is insufficient.

I think that the overhead emergency compartment with the little yellow oxygen masks should also contain a short billie club of sorts. In the event of a highjacking, the pilot pulls a lever, down come the clubs, and everyone gets a chance to pummel a terrorist into pulp.

In addition to this, it is nice that the cushion is a floatation aid, but I think it should have a nice plate of carbon fiber in it, so it can be warn like breastplate versus knife wielding attackers.

Actually, I have to say that I am against handguns in the cockpit. I am a fan of reinforced doors that lock from within, plus a new system. I think that in the event of highjacking, the pilots should be able to pull a lever that deploys the happy little yellow masks, a bunch of billie clubs, and if the terrorsits aren't pulp in 45 seconds, a second lever results in a fine mist of a respiratory irritant should fill the passenger compartment. Those folks sitting in their seats with their masks on should be okay, albeit in need of a shower when they disembark. Those folks who are still up and around get to suffer round after round of gagging, puking, and general discomfort. The masks may need to be replaced with a fairly flimsy hood style mask, though.

Anyone who is still left should be dealt with tazer armed flight attendants. Actually, I saw something cool on the History Channel the other day. It was a tazer-shield. Basically a riot shield with a series of conductive ribbons on the outside. A small one would be good for a flight attendant.

[bogie]

Guys, repeat after me:

This is all useless.

There will be no more hijackings of that sort in the U.S.

Why?

It ain't the TSA, it ain't reinforced doors, and it ain't pilots with 9mms...

It's the passengers. They will no longer be cooperative victims. Even if a terrorist organziation manages to get a half-dozen fanatics on a plane, the passengers will overpower 'em.

And likely commence to reducing them to component parts.

[Jim March]

Have you guys heard of Ford's new TSA commemorative car?

Yup.

The "Anal Probe".

:scrutiny:

[Gordon Fink]

Bogie, I think you’re right … for now. However, the government is still pushing the “don’t resist” tactic that gave us September 11th in the first place.

~G. Fink

[Mr Grinch]

Guys, repeat after me:

There will be no more hijackings of that sort in the U.S...

...It's the passengers. They will no longer be cooperative victims. Even if a terrorist organziation manages to get a half-dozen fanatics on a plane, the passengers will overpower 'em.

First, TSA is training pilots as we speak, there are armed pilots flying today.

Second, passengers can not be counted upon to stop another terrorist attack. The next attack will not be like the previous one, nor is it a given than the passengers will outnumber, overwhelm, or outwit the next one. If this could be assured, there would not be F16's on alert, practicing the aforementioned scenarios.

Most passengers have not thought about what they would do in such an event.[

[telomerase]

>First, TSA is training pilots as we speak, there are armed pilots flying today.

48? Or did four drop out? Anyway, I don't think that's a very good proportion after more than two years. It should be all of them (and some of the stewardesses); if you can't shoot a Glock you shouldn't be flying a 200-ton plane.

>Second, passengers can not be counted upon to stop another terrorist attack.

Of course not, and there is nothing wrong with the Air Force training (although it would seem that it wouldn't take that much special training to shoot down unarmed aircraft with no ECM). My point was that there's so much whining about "pilots with guns are too DANGEROUS, they might hit someone". So to avoid this small risk, we just kill all the passengers with missiles instead...

[Erik]

What Grinch said.

Erik, happy that the military is practicing fdor somethign they hope to never have to do. Kind of like our WMD program, when you think about it.

[Mr Grinch]

Have a look here- the numbers are obviously classified. Training is ongoing. The word on the street is that it is outstanding in all respects.

Article about FFDO Training (http://www.borderlandnews.com/stories/borderland/20030920-23596.shtml)

[RocketMan]

On another issue, that of security at U.S. ports, Eberhart said the military and other federal agencies plan to set up command centers at major ports where "everyone involved in security is in one place in an operations center taking notes," Eberhart said. The first two such centers are in San Diego and Norfolk, Va., he said.


The security underling rushes in, agitated beyond measure.
"Sir! Hijackers have taken over ToughLuck Airlines flight 667. They're going to fly it into the Empire State Building! What should I do?"

His irritated boss replies, "Get to the command center and take notes, you idiot, take notes! That will stop them!"

[AZLibertarian]

I've already said I'm an airline captain at a major national airline and have been an outspoken critic of how the TSA has implemented the FFDO program.

That being said, I may be on the cusp of eating my words. The TSA seems to be taking baby steps towards making this program actually workable, and not a 'ND waiting to happen'. They seem to have wised up and done the math regarding putting Air Marshals on flights. There simply isn't now, nor will there ever be, enough money for Air Marshals on anything more than a scant fraction of the flights across America every day. The TSA seems to be drifting towards a view that getting as many guns as possible into the hands of pilots is a good thing, and not a threat to their bureaucracy.

Mr. Grinch, the article you posted is one of the most accurate and fairly presented articles I've seen regarding the FFDO program.

Grey54956...

Actually, I have to say that I am against handguns in the cockpit. I am a fan of reinforced doors that lock from within, plus a new system. I think that in the event of highjacking, the pilots should be able to pull a lever that deploys the happy little yellow masks, a bunch of billie clubs, and if the terrorsits aren't pulp in 45 seconds, a second lever results in a fine mist of a respiratory irritant should fill the passenger compartment. Those folks sitting in their seats with their masks on should be okay, albeit in need of a shower when they disembark. Those folks who are still up and around get to suffer round after round of gagging, puking, and general discomfort. The masks may need to be replaced with a fairly flimsy hood style mask, though.

Anyone who is still left should be dealt with tazer armed flight attendants. Actually, I saw something cool on the History Channel the other day. It was a tazer-shield. Basically a riot shield with a series of conductive ribbons on the outside. A small one would be good for a flight attendant.

I'm hoping your posting was TIC, but in case it isn't let me show you the holes in your plan...

Reinforced doors--Great idea, but that doesn't mean they're impenetrable. I don't want to go much deeper, but they really only buy time for the armed pilot to draw his weapon.

Billie clubs--I can't believe you're seriously advocating that an airline issue clubs to a group of people, in some level of panic, with no training, and no clear understanding of who's a BG and who's not. Imagine yourself in a 'Ultimate Wrestling' cage with a couple hundred folks equally armed. Last guy standing is the winner. Not a good plan.

Irritant spray--Kind of a CIA approach that simply isn't workable. What spray do you use, and at what concentration? How do you use enough spray to subdue the healthy BG without endangering the health of the 80 year old woman? How do you keep the spray from entering the cockpit and affecting the pilots...and therefore everyone else too? The Russians tried this about a year ago in that terrorist takeover of a theater, and they killed about 120, IIRC, just with the gas they introduced.

Tazer-shield--First of all, this isn't exactly the most customer-friendly approach--Meet your customers like you're expecting a prison riot. Then, you'd be asking the flight attendants to carry this shield throughout the flight. Don't know about you, but carrying even a 3 pound shield on your arm all day would get quite tiring.

[Quartus]

it would seem that it wouldn't take that much special training to shoot down unarmed aircraft with no ECM


Methinks the training has less to do with the mechanics of shooting the plane down and more to do with the procedures, safeguards, and emotional issues of getting American pilots to shoot down a plane full of innocent women and children.


That's got to be a major concern. When push comes to shove, will the pilot pull the trigger?

Not a pretty thought either way.

[Leatherneck]

Good analysis, AZLib.

You too, Quartus.

TC
TFL Survivor

[Orthonym]

I believe that article said that we can count on the USAF not to shoot down airliners accidentally !

To get back to basics: Ernest K. Gann, an old-time (pre-WWII) airline pilot, complained in one of his books about pilots being required to carry the "mail gun" when flying. He wrote about how relieved he and his fellow pilots felt when their company (AA?) relented and let them put the revolvers in their chart cases once they left the ground. (Wearing a pistol on one's hip while sitting in a DC-3's pilot's seat for hours was apparently non-comfy)

How did this get all turned around so upside-down and backwards? If airline pilots used to be required to use deadly force to protect the mail, why are they now forbidden to use deadly force to protect their passengers?


P.S. The book is "Fate is the Hunter"

[answerguy]

"pilots with guns are too DANGEROUS, they might hit someone". So to avoid this small risk, we just kill all the passengers with missiles instead...

That is very funny... in a very sad way.

[Grey54956]

AZLib, I am joking to some degree. However, I think that the important thing here is this: what can be done to resecure the plane before someone has to shoot it with a missile. Let's see how my proposed plan (no matter how silly) and your disagreements hold up to this litmus test...

Reinforced doors--Great idea, but that doesn't mean they're impenetrable. I don't want to go much deeper, but they really only buy time for the armed pilot to draw his weapon.

Litmus test: Doors aren't impenetrable but they buy time to organize some resistance/countermeasure and resecure the situation, thus avoiding having to shoot down the aircraft and kill everybody onboard.

Billie clubs--I can't believe you're seriously advocating that an airline issue clubs to a group of people, in some level of panic, with no training, and no clear understanding of who's a BG and who's not. Imagine yourself in a 'Ultimate Wrestling' cage with a couple hundred folks equally armed. Last guy standing is the winner. Not a good plan.

Litmus test: Everybody starts cracking the skulls of the hostile party. The plane turns into a free-for-all iron cage match. Eventually, everyone who initially started the problem is suppressed, maybe with a few innocent bystanders, but the situation is secure, thus avoiding having to shoot down the aircraft and kill everybody onboard.

Irritant spray--Kind of a CIA approach that simply isn't workable. What spray do you use, and at what concentration? How do you use enough spray to subdue the healthy BG without endangering the health of the 80 year old woman? How do you keep the spray from entering the cockpit and affecting the pilots...and therefore everyone else too? The Russians tried this about a year ago in that terrorist takeover of a theater, and they killed about 120, IIRC, just with the gas they introduced.

Litmus test: As I said earlier, if the little yellow fun masks were replaced with a full hood type mask, this wouldn't be an issue for anyone in there seats, namely the 80 year old woman. The masks can easily be designed to tear if removed from their anchors (rendering them inoperable). The cockpit can be pressurized with its own air supply, which will keep the irritant away from the pilots, who have their own hoods just in case. If everyone in the passenger compartment is puking, wheezing, crying, snotting, or sitting quietly and comfortably in their seats, then the situation is secure, thus avoiding having to shoot down the aircraft and kill everybody onboard.

Historical note: The russians attempted to use a strong paralytic/sedative agent in the hostage situation, not an irritant. The terrorists had bombs planted around the theatre, and a number of terrorists were holding detonators. The idea being that if the Russians stormed the theatre, the terrorists who would die anyway in the fighting would simply explode the bombs on their own person, as well as those placed around the theatre, and kill everyone. The russians introduced the gas into the theatre, thinking that it would quickly and conveniently incapacitate the bombers before they could detonate their devices. The plan worked in this regard, but they got the dosage incorrect and also failed to have sufficient antidote on hand for the hostages, which resulted in the fatalities. Altogether, it was a good plan that was carried out with disasterously poor effect.

Tazer-shield--First of all, this isn't exactly the most customer-friendly approach--Meet your customers like you're expecting a prison riot. Then, you'd be asking the flight attendants to carry this shield throughout the flight. Don't know about you, but carrying even a 3 pound shield on your arm all day would get quite tiring.

Litmus test: I am not suggesting that a flight attendant wear it all day. I think it should be stored at the front of the plane, probably in a closet. When the SHTF, grab it and block the center aisle/points of entry into the cockpit. Any resistance is better than none. If the pilot and co-pilot are the only ones armed, then who is flying the plane when they have to deal with the situation. That should be the last line of defense. The more defenses you have before they have to get directly involved, the better the chances are of resecuring the situation, thus avoiding having to shoot down the aircraft and kill everybody onboard.

As far as the appearances of a well thought out defensive strategy, what makes for better customer service:

1.) The promise to get your passengers to their destination, whatever it takes.

2.) The promise that should the SHTF, there is very little chance for resisting a terrorist attack, resuslting in having to shoot down the aircraft and kill everybody onboard.

I would say that I would fly on any airline that adopts the first option.

[zastros]

A question.

If they go through with the plan to put anti missile lasers(or whatever) on all the passenger planes, won't this screw up the whole shoot 'em down to save them scenario? <ow, bit my tongue>

zastros

[Keith]

I wish they'd splash news about that training on every media outlet.

A hijacking is a death sentence and everyone needs to know that. The only way you'll survive is if everyone onboard attacks and kills the hijackers.

Keith

[bountyhunter]

thinking that out F-16's would actually need to PRACTICE taking down a plane that size whose top speed is about 1/3 of theirs. I guess I'll start doing those seven yard bullseye training drills then.........

[AZLibertarian]

Grey54956,
You and I are making some similar points, and differ elsewhere.

The reinforced doors are there to buy time only.

With your "clubs" idea, you still don't acknowledge that one may not know just who is a BG, and you do acknowledge that some innocents may be "suppressed". Can you imagine the liability the airline would be under when they sponsored what amounts to a passenger riot?

Your idea of introducing some irritating gas that would prevent BGs from doing their evil, while having masks capable of preventing harm to the innocents is still much science fiction, I'm afraid. A cockpit cannot be designed with a seperate air supply. To hermetically seal the cockpit away from the cabin could put catastrophic stresses on the airframe in the event of a decompression leak in the cabin...Cockpit at high pressure, while cabin at low pressure would lead to forces to that might seperate the cockpit from the airframe.

Your concern about the pilots being the only ones armed and then wondering who is flying when the SHTF, is no problem at all. We're trained in any emergency to split our duties, and do it all the time.

Storing your tazer-shield in the forward part of the cabin would eliminate the problems of carrying it throughout the flight. You're right that layered defenses is the way to go. Our flight attendants are already trained to be one of these layers. But there is a limit to what can be done practically.

The other element missing here is a discussion of the costs of these plans. The industry has been bleeding money for years. This could lead to a whole new thread, but there are a variety of reasons behind the new unprofitability of the airline industry. The plans you propose--while I believe are impractical--would cost something to implement. Who would pay for your plan, or any other? For example, the bullet-resistant doors that are now on passenger planes cost between $35,000 and $55,000 each. The airlines have been recently re-imbursed from the government for these costs, but that well may have run dry for any future security related improvements.

[Sergeant Bob]

The scary part is...... thinking that out F-16's would actually need to PRACTICE taking down a plane that size whose top speed is about 1/3 of theirs. I guess I'll start doing those seven yard bullseye training drills then.........
They can shoot down just about anything that flies. I expect the training involves locating and shooting down the right plane (among the hundreds of other planes in the air), and doing it before it can be used against a target. When not at war, all they do is train, and this is just another scenario thrown into the training.

[Grey54956]

AZLib, I know there are some cost, liability and feasability issues with my suggestions. I don't have any idea why a bullet resistant door cost so much for the airlines. It seems silly, but the maker of these items is probably skinning the airlines for all he can because they are required by law. However, a bullet resistant piece of lexan roughly the size of a cockpit door really should only be a couple hundred bucks. Other materials could be used as well, and they shouldn't cost that much.

The pressurized cockpit isn't as far fetched as you think. Most irritant gases are actually an inert gas with the irritant being a fine particulate. Like CS or any of the other pepper sprays. The gas itself isn't usually harmful at all. So, the air is still safely breathable if filtered. All you would need to do to pressurize the cockpit enough to keep the particulate out is shut off all the vents in the passenger compartment, while activating the vents in the cockpit. I worked in electronic assembly, where we use a similar system to keep dust off the factory floor. A very slight pressure difference is enough to keep the dirty air from seeping in. Or, think about your bathroom fan. The fan decreases the pressure in your bathroom, and when the door is closed (or just cracked open) the external presssure keeps the stink from escaping into the rest of the house by pushing it in.

The clubs thing is a little silly, but passengers should be encouraged to fight the BGs when ever they identify themselves as such. I think you can pretty much identify them as they are the only ones who will actually try to get up and make for the cockpit. Everyone else will eventually settle back in their seat.

[Quartus]

You're making this waaaay too complicated. Want to guarantee no more hijacking attempts? (Let alone a successful hijack.)


Just restore the 2A. Armed passengers. Problem solved.

[Mr Grinch]

Just restore the 2A. Armed passengers. Problem solved.

Do you seriously think that would solve the problem?

Let's say this rule goes into effect tomorrow. Based on the small percentage of citizens who actually bother to qualify and carry firearms today via state CHL's, would you not have a very small chance of having an armed passenger in the cabin?

Would you require any training for citizens to qualify to carry a firearm on an airliner with complex systems running inches away from the cabin?

Even allowing LEO's to carry as a matter of routine would not result in a host of flying LEO's in a particular jet's cabin, the percentage of flying LEO's for pleasure or business is not very high.

Tell me why allowing armed passengers would wind up with more friendly guns in the air, versues opening an avenue for evil teams to carry weapons and take over an aircaft.

Bottom line, it ain't going to happen, but your premise is worth exploring.

Grinch

[Intune]

Just restore the 2A. Armed passengers. Problem solved.
Ladies & gentlemen, we have a winner. Thanks to all of you for calling in...

[zastros]

It's strange. I happened upon "All In the Family" the other night, and they were arguing(imagine that) about the way to stop all the hijackings that were the new plague on airliners. Archie's idea was to pass out guns to all the passengers. "No hijacker is gonna try nothin', since he knows he's outgunned. [you stupid meathead, you.]" I can't decide what it means when I decide that Archie was right more often than not.

Now stifle yourselves, and get outta my chair!


zastros

[Holly76201]

:banghead:
IMO, in addition to other security precautions currently in place every pilot on every flight should be armed. I think that's a heck of a lot less radical than having jetliners blown out of the sky by F-14's or F-16's or whatever tactical jets the Air Force, Navy, Uncle Sam's Misguided Chirrens have scrambled.

[jimpeel]

When they first discussed the possibility of shooting down a plane -- and were refusing to discuss the possibility of arming pilots -- I wanted to get some people together and go picket the airport.

I even put this forth at TFL at: http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=110228 . Unfortunately, some are more inclined to sit and grouse about the problem than try to address it as most of the responses can attest.

[Mr Grinch]

Unfortunately, some are more inclined to sit and grouse about the problem than try to address it as most of the responses can attest.

Well, that's is what the internet is all about right? :D

I respect your desire to do more than just sit around and whine about circumstances. We need more people like you.

The good news is that a host of people, especially the pilots themselves, have fought and won the battle to arm pilots. Many good people have fallen on their swords in the process. The result is that as we speak, despite the hurdles, pilots are receiving outstanding training and are being armed today. The people doing the training respect the effort that it took to get the laws passed and the program stood up, and are putting forth the energy to assure that pilots are getting excellent training.

Amazing. I don't know how many times folks said "it will never happen", but through the efforts of a group of great Americans, it is happening today.

Best,

Grinch

Look here-

Federal Flight Deck Officer Training (http://www.borderlandnews.com/stories/borderland/20030920-23596.shtml)

[Quartus]

Do you seriously think that would solve the problem?


Yup. Notice I said it would prevent any attempts. If the BGs know that there is nothing to prevent Joe Average from packing on a plane, do you really think they'll even try?

If your answer is yes, I suggest you go talk to the Israelis. When was the last time they had a hijacking attempt?


Not since they started putting plainclothes officers on their planes. ZERO attempts.


That sounds a lot better than shooting down a 747 to protect them from the dangers of a cabin full of armed citizens.


BTW, just pass a Federal law that allows any licensed CCW to fly armed, and watch the support for CCW shoot through the roof!


Uh, so to speak.


:D


BTW, it may surprise you to know that Hollyweird has it wrong - the chances of downing a plane with gunfire from inside are pretty low. In fact, if you compare it with the chances of being downed by a missle from an F-16, that danger begins to look pretty good.

[Mr Grinch]

You've changed your tune from the original post. You mentioned restoring the Second Amendment, and allowing passengers, not "plain clothed officers" or CHL's to carry.

Approach this as an "academic excercise" if you will-

Even then, what would prevent Al Qaeda from showing up for a flight with five to twenty five armed agents on a flight that would have a completely random number of armed passengers if any?

In other words, would not the Bad Guys merely exploit what you propose? Do you think a standard CHL would be able to properly stop a coordinated attack on an aircraft? Do you think it might be a good idea for every armed passenger to know about the OTHER armed passengers? If that is a good idea, then wouldn't any bad guy carrying a firearm also know exactly who else was armed?

El Al's measures are far more comprehensive and not remotely similar to your proposal. They don't let the equvalent of"CHL's" carry onboard. They employ the equvalent of FAM's, Armed Pilots not to mention the extensive security screening and interview before enplanment.

My premise is that allowing passengers to carry, CHL or not, is not enough in itself to thwart the threat, keeping in mind, that the attackers are quite happy to die in their cause.

Best,

Grinch

[jimpeel]

Standing around at various large airports, handing out copies of this article, would go far in getting the pilots armed. I am confident that 90+% of the people boarding aircraft are totally unaware of this program; which ought to have the designation "Operation Splash One".

Outraged indignation is the coin of the realm of any business, especially the airline business. The only thing withholding largess, by withholding your participation, will do is to drive them to the government with their hands out for the lost revenue. We will all pay for them to continue to dig in their heels against the arming of pilots as they continue to run their operations using our money anyway.

[Quartus]

I didn't change my tune - I cited a real world example of how the uncertainty of having armed men aboard airplanes has completely prevented any hijacking attmepts for the Israelis.


So let's take your silly scenario one step at a time:

First, you assume that the percentage of CCW would be about the same as it is now. I don't think so. More people would carry every day, and even MORE would carry on planes, simply because of 9-11. And that would be news. The BGs would know about it.


So I don't think they'd even TRY. Why? Because even if they get their 25 guys on board, they aren't going to be able to hijack the plane. There may be a lot of bullets flying, but BEST case for them is the plane will go down. They simply aren't going to be able to take over a plane and fly it into a building. They don't mind dying for their cause, but they aren't going to die to do some thing that THEY KNOW WILL FAIL. That's why El Al hasn't had any ATTEMPTS.


And I kinda think having 25 mid-easterners all try to board one aircraft would get some attention.


You aren't a commercial pilot, are you? :uhoh:

[Mr Grinch]

Your premise makes no sense. You point to El Al as an example, while ignoring the fact that El Al prohibits the very solution you extoll.

Again, El Al hasn't had attempts because of their comprehensive approach. That approach has no relevance to your random (the staffing would still be random no matter how many more leisure travelers or road warriors sign up) CHL scenario.

It reportedly takes many weeks to train current FAM's, what would you suggest in terms of training, background checks, etc for your airborne CHL troops? They would face the same problem as a FAM would they not?

What is the percentage of CHL versus the general population today? What, assuming there would be training and background checks required for an airborne CHL, would the new percentage of flying CHL's?

The point of this is that you are giving the bad guy's a means to get their own arms onboard. It doesn't take 25, it only takes two or three on a lightly loaded flight, with an unknown number of minimally trained and armed passengers.

Again, this is not going to happen, but it is fun to consider the problems of such an endeavor.

Anyone care to comment?

Grinch

[jimpeel]

Sound file (http://www.favewavs.com/wavs/misc/pilotguns.wav)

Hope these guys are on my flight next time I fly.:D

[Roadkill Coyote]

Assuming that armed passengers would prevent hijacking attempts, because the terrorists could probably not take control of the aircraft is seriously flawed. Suicide attacks are the modus du jour in israel, and the fact that some have been prevented has done nothing to stop them. For that matter, although flight 93 crashed before flying into a building, the terrorists still managed to kill fourty people in the attempt. The idea that Al-Qaeda would balk at a plan that might only kill fourty people is silly. Hamas considers it a great sucess when they blow up a handful of israelis, and Al-Qaeda has not hesitated to conduct operations like the foreign compound bombing in Saudi Arabia for smaller return in western blood.

[Quartus]

<sigh> Okay, I'll try one more time, s... l... o... w... l... y.


Deterrence 101


El Al does not suffer hijack attempts.

This is because El Al has undercover armed officers on thier planes.

The terrorists know that any attempt to hijack a plane will fail.

Therefore, they don't try.



Now, you may (or may not) have noticed that I did NOT say that terrorists will not try because they fear to be killed. Clearly, they do NOT fear being killed.

They do not want to die for no reason. If they know they cannot succeed, they will not make the attempt. They will find another way. So, what does it mean to them to succeed?


The point of 9-11 was to use commercial aircraft as large guided missles to attack large targets like the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.

Armed passengers on board means that they will not be able to use a commercial aircraft as large guided missles to attack large targets like the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. In other words, they will not succeed.

If all they wanted to do on 9-11 was to kill 40 or 400 people in an airplane, there are much easier ways than hijacking. (Shoulder fired missles will do the job nicely, and I expect we'll see that sooner or later. )




It reportedly takes many weeks to train current FAM's, what would you suggest in terms of training, background checks, etc for your airborne CHL troops? They would face the same problem as a FAM would they not?

What is the percentage of CHL versus the general population today? What, assuming there would be training and background checks required for an airborne CHL, would the new percentage of flying CHL's?


Okay, now I'll try this part again, s... l... o... w... l... y:


I said "restore the 2A" Did you get that? Good. Okay, here's a difficult concept, but try to follow along:

The 2A doesn't authorize the government to do background checks or require training.

See? Second Amendment. No training required. No background checks allowed. Just a strange and outmoded idea: obeying the Constitution.


Weird, I know.

[Roadkill Coyote]

Your reasoning is flawed for several reasons

El Al does not depend upon deterrence, they screen passengers extensively.

The last attempt to hijack an El Al flight occurred in November of 2002 (it invovled a pocket knife, obviously chosen because it was all the suspect could get by the aforementioned screening).

The fact remains that El Qaeda would consider killing less than fourty people a sucess, they have in the past. For that matter they would probably veiw the media coverage of a bloody gunfight aboard a commercial airliner as one too.

On the ground, without such screening, armed deterrence in Israel has not stopped suicide attacks.

Restoring the Second Amendment is a good idea, but its not a magic bullet that will stop suicide terrorism. Dismantle the TSA today, and the airlines would have a similar, or at least equally unpleasant, system in place tomorrow.
Edited for grammar...

[Mr Grinch]

El Al does not suffer hijack attempts.

This is because El Al has undercover armed officers on thier planes.

The terrorists know that any attempt to hijack a plane will fail.

Therefore, they don't try.

Quartus, lose the condescending tone. You are not impressing anyone with either your logic, or your attitude. You make points with sound arguments, you lose them all with snide remarks. They are the tools of ineffective people.

The main thrust of your argument about El Al doesn't translate to your proposal for our aviation system. El Al ENSURES that they have the equvalent of Federal Air Marshals on EVERY FLIGHT. Trained, effective, capable warriors.

However, your proposal is to put an unknown, random number of untrained, untested, unprepared civilians on our airplanes as the equivalent of El Al's comprehensive program (which also includes extensive, two to three hour screening and double armored cockpit doors) is a non sequitur. El Al's program is not viable in the current US System. They profile passengers, which we are unwilling to do.

The premise that merely arming citizens will provide a deterrent is completely unfounded. While I am a strong supporter of the 2nd amendment to be sure, it is simply the concept that begins a process. Allowing the basic right of bearing arms is no deterrent in and of itself, it is bearing arms with solid training, proficiency and evaluation that ensures real deterence no matter what the arena. We don't send amateurs armed with their favorite rifles to fight wars against trained armies. What you are proposing is the equivalent of exactly that, and would be a disaster.

Grinch

[AZLibertarian]

OK, I've ID'd myself here as an airline captain at a major national airline before, so let me put in my 2 cents. I suspect there are others here too, but just haven't spoken up yet.

El Al: They have almost no equivalent to a domestic airline operation. They are said to have FAMs on every flight, and this has been very successful for them. But because they are international only, their passengers are screened more heavily than our domestic passengers, and they are packed more densely (350-300 passengers per plane verses 150-200 here). This makes the use of their FAMs more economical. And Grinch is right in pointing out that their FAMs are just part of their approach.

As deeply as we all here believe in the 2A here--and I count myself as a complete adherent to the wisdom of the FF here--arming pilots is not a Second Amendment issue. I fully appreciate the support of the NRA, GOA, and other 2A rights organizations in getting the issue out of the stalemate of the TSA and the gov't bureaucrats, but this is more about national security than 2A rights. This nation simply cannot have another set of airplanes slam into national landmarks again.

We also need to seperate the issue of CCW from preventing another 9/11. Sure we'd all like to do what we can to help, but allowing CCW holders to carry on a plane just isn't going to happen for a couple of reasons. Firstly, there are huge variances in the training to get a CCW. Some states have you pass a course, in others you have to show a threat, and still others you need to be a good friend of your local sheriff. We have to admit that we're the interested shooters here, and that there are probably 10 CCW holders who only go through a box of ammo a year for every one of us here. This would lead to a wide range of abilities in a place where accurate shots are a must. Grinch also makes a good point when he asks if the CCW holders are going to know who each other are. Would these introductions be made on the plane? Would there be a "Team Leader", and if so, how would he/she be chosen? What are the tactics, and does everyone agree on them? This is kind of like forming a SWAT team out of rookie cops. As willing as these rookies might be, it simply isn't a good idea. For anyone who shoots IDPA, imagine a scenario where you're looking at 50 targets, of which 15 have handguns and 5 are BGs. You have 3 seconds to start shooting. Timer starts NOW....Oh yeah, don't make any mistakes. And finally, the idea of a team of terrorists simply passing a CCW course and buying tickets on their next victim flight simply cannot be dismissed.

The FAMs are said to be exceptional shooters. Some of them are wearing out their guns. How long does it take one of us to flat wear out a gun? Years would be my guess, if ever. For the shooting most of us do, a gun will last a lifetime. The FAMs are wearing theirs out in a couple of years. The shooting the FFDOs train for is not quite as demanding, but then their mission isn't either. But make no mistake that the FFDOs are trained to high standards...which is exactly what one ought to expect.

Linking CCW or other 2A issues with preventing another 9/11 style attack is a mistake, IMO, and largely a waste of time. It ain't gonna happen.

[C.R.Sam]

Grey54956
Several reasons why the high cost of armoring the flight deck.

Not just the door. Involves the whole bulkhead.

Very low production rate due to having to tailor the assembly to small groups of aircraft. Just because it is a 7blipty7 doesn't mean that a piece will fit all. There are running mods during production and many are custom built in small numbers for the purchaser.

Every part that goes into a commercial and/or air transport aircraft is made of certified materials, the work is inspected and certified and the end product is certified. Paper costs money...lots of it. Even the manufacturing contractor has to be inspected and certified.
(one of the reasons the overall safety record is so good.)

The piece has to be tested to insure non interference with attitude, navigation and communications instruments and gear.

I know I am leavin some out, but we have already accounted for huge cost.

Sam. ATP, WAL