D.W. Drang
Member
I think we all knew this, but here it is fresh in print.
Note the Boeing rep tapdancing at the end...
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/157428_air21.html
Aerospace Notebook: Weapons on planes debated
Wednesday, January 21, 2004
By JAMES WALLACE
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER
Hollywood has painted a grim picture of what can happen when a gun is fired in an airplane and the bullet passes through the fuselage or a window.
The result can be catastrophic -- at least according to Hollywood.
With pistol-packing sky marshals already on many U.S. flights, and with this country now demanding that sky marshals be on some foreign flights that enter U.S. airspace, the issue of guns on planes is getting a closer look.
The International Federation of Air Line Pilots Association is adamantly opposed to having guns on jetliners.
Yesterday, British Airways Chief Executive Rod Eddington was quoted in an Associated Press article as saying Europeans view the notion of putting weapons on airplanes as "abhorrent."
Yet, Britain and France say they remain open to having armed sky marshals on some flights into the United States. Several other countries, however, including Sweden, Denmark, Portugal and Finland, say they would rather a flight be canceled than have a sky marshal on the plane with a gun.
In this country, the pilots union campaigned after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks to allow pilots to be armed. A bill authorizing pilots to carry guns was signed into law in November 2002, but few pilots have wanted to go through the intensive training program, which includes a psychological examination.
The Federal Aviation Administration is involved in ballistic research on what can happen to a jetliner's systems and structures in event of an in-flight shootout.
That data is not yet available, but airplane maker Boeing offers this observation, from testimony given to a House aviation subcommittee in 2002 by Ron Hinderberger, then Boeing's director of aviation safety. Hinderberger has since moved over to the 7E7 development program.
Hinderberger painted a picture that is much less dire than Hollywood writers have imagined.
"The risk of loss of the aircraft due to a stray round from a handgun is very slight," he said in his testimony. "Boeing commercial service history contains cases of gunfire on board in-service airplanes, all of which landed safely."
He noted that commercial jetliners are designed with sufficient strength and redundancy that "single or even multiple handgun bullet holes would not result in loss of the aircraft. A single bullet hole in the fuselage would have little effect on cabin pressurization."
If the bullet broke out a cabin window, resulting in rapid decompression, he said, passengers near the window could be injured or even killed if they did not have their seat belts on, but "there would be little hazard to continued safe flight and landing."
Hinderberger noted that planes are designed to withstand an uncontained engine failure, in which the engine explodes and shrapnel penetrates the fuselage.
Jetliners have also survived the loss of large cargo doors at altitude, and a Boeing 737 landed safety in Hawaii after a large section of the top of fuselage was ripped away, Hinderberger said.
On 14 occasions, he noted, Boeing planes have even survived and landed after an in-flight bomb blast.
"All these types of events are generally greater than the impact of bullet holes on an aircraft, he said.
But Hinderberger also acknowledged that more study of the risks and tradeoffs of having guns on planes was needed.
"There is a remote possibility of causing a fire, explosion, engine failure or loss of critical systems, given an unfortunate placement of shots and combination of conditions," he said.
Note the Boeing rep tapdancing at the end...
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/157428_air21.html
Aerospace Notebook: Weapons on planes debated
Wednesday, January 21, 2004
By JAMES WALLACE
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER
Hollywood has painted a grim picture of what can happen when a gun is fired in an airplane and the bullet passes through the fuselage or a window.
The result can be catastrophic -- at least according to Hollywood.
With pistol-packing sky marshals already on many U.S. flights, and with this country now demanding that sky marshals be on some foreign flights that enter U.S. airspace, the issue of guns on planes is getting a closer look.
The International Federation of Air Line Pilots Association is adamantly opposed to having guns on jetliners.
Yesterday, British Airways Chief Executive Rod Eddington was quoted in an Associated Press article as saying Europeans view the notion of putting weapons on airplanes as "abhorrent."
Yet, Britain and France say they remain open to having armed sky marshals on some flights into the United States. Several other countries, however, including Sweden, Denmark, Portugal and Finland, say they would rather a flight be canceled than have a sky marshal on the plane with a gun.
In this country, the pilots union campaigned after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks to allow pilots to be armed. A bill authorizing pilots to carry guns was signed into law in November 2002, but few pilots have wanted to go through the intensive training program, which includes a psychological examination.
The Federal Aviation Administration is involved in ballistic research on what can happen to a jetliner's systems and structures in event of an in-flight shootout.
That data is not yet available, but airplane maker Boeing offers this observation, from testimony given to a House aviation subcommittee in 2002 by Ron Hinderberger, then Boeing's director of aviation safety. Hinderberger has since moved over to the 7E7 development program.
Hinderberger painted a picture that is much less dire than Hollywood writers have imagined.
"The risk of loss of the aircraft due to a stray round from a handgun is very slight," he said in his testimony. "Boeing commercial service history contains cases of gunfire on board in-service airplanes, all of which landed safely."
He noted that commercial jetliners are designed with sufficient strength and redundancy that "single or even multiple handgun bullet holes would not result in loss of the aircraft. A single bullet hole in the fuselage would have little effect on cabin pressurization."
If the bullet broke out a cabin window, resulting in rapid decompression, he said, passengers near the window could be injured or even killed if they did not have their seat belts on, but "there would be little hazard to continued safe flight and landing."
Hinderberger noted that planes are designed to withstand an uncontained engine failure, in which the engine explodes and shrapnel penetrates the fuselage.
Jetliners have also survived the loss of large cargo doors at altitude, and a Boeing 737 landed safety in Hawaii after a large section of the top of fuselage was ripped away, Hinderberger said.
On 14 occasions, he noted, Boeing planes have even survived and landed after an in-flight bomb blast.
"All these types of events are generally greater than the impact of bullet holes on an aircraft, he said.
But Hinderberger also acknowledged that more study of the risks and tradeoffs of having guns on planes was needed.
"There is a remote possibility of causing a fire, explosion, engine failure or loss of critical systems, given an unfortunate placement of shots and combination of conditions," he said.
