Guns on Planes

[String]

Even a normal bullet passing through the body wouldnt down the aircraft.  Yes it would depressurise but thats not a lethal event for a small hole like that.

Im not sure what size hole the planes PAX are rated to maintain a pressure but in any case the standard procedure in that oxygen masks drop, people scream and the pilot dives to 10,000ft.  Upsetting yes, deadly?  No.

Id be more concerned about a miss hitting one of the other 250 people around the place than anything else.

A few other points - it saves terrorists the job smuggling a firearm onto the plane.  Few hijackings are one man efforts, 4 or 5 hijackers could easily overpower a lone air marshall.

September 11th hijackers were all done with small knives and implements not firearms - they didnt need them.

Im getting really sick of this country giving in to every single demand the USA makes of it with this being the latest in a long line of total capitulation.
America is a country paranoid at the moment and unfortunately an imbecile in charge of a paranoid nation isnt exactly condusive to world peace !

I also think a lot of these alerts are deliberately overstated to keep the population scared to keep support for his policies.  Some of them also seem to be used in a business sense to put non US competitors at a disadvantage, for example airlines.

Money would be far better spent stopping terrorists getting on or getting a weapon ONTO an aicraft in the first place.

A relative of mine recently flew back to the UK from europe and by accident left his swiss army knife in his camera bag which was hand luggage - it went totally undetected.

On the other hand i must look really dodgy as nearly every time i fly i get my own personal pat-down search.  

Out of the 16 or so flights ive made since September 11th ive been searched on 12 of those.  The worst being my trip to Venice on first week of January 2002.  I wore my thick snow boots as it was sub zero and snowing there only to have to take them off at Gatwick, demonstrate the bottoms werent cut open or hiding anything and have them sniffed (rather them than me...).  This was only a few weeks after the shoe-bomber attempt.
Coming back was worse, i cleared security and when they called the flight went through the gate onto the tarmac.  At the bottom of the plane steps were 2 italian policemen who took me to a side room where my boots were removed and searched, i was searched and my hand luggage searched to the extent that my electric razor and minidisc player were taken apart.  By the time they'd finished the plane had boarded and i walked up the aisle with everyone glaring at me and im sure thinking "Terrorist".  Just to add to the paranoia, although the plane was quite full there was nobody seated next to me, across the aisle or the one in front or behind

Anyway.. Ive drifted off topic so to summarise...  Guns on aircraft == bad thing

[Crisspy Fiver]

My view is this and sorry if I offend any one.

I think marshals are a good idea. Terrorists and the passenger's will not know who the marshals are! getting a weapon from one will not be easy. These people train and train to be able to deal with close up defence its very unlikely someone will get there weapon. If the taser things are also used then if the terrorist did get the weapon the marshal could quickly take out the terrorist while he was trying to work out how to use the weapon.  

As has been said these people dont care if they die. In fact its better for them and there cause if they do. On flight 93 during the hijacking several passenger's tried to take back control of the plane resulting in it crashing and all being killed. They did however stop it from being flown into its intended target.

Im not sure if in this situation I would have the guts to fight. I would like to think that yes I would as im probably going to die any way. The other day though someone opened my car door while I was stationary on the phone parked and demanded I get out as they wanted my car. I completely craped myself and panicked. I tried to reason with the person (doh! how dumb am I). I wanted to go for the keys and start the car but was weighing up the options. Would he attack me before it started. Would it start? after probably just a few seconds which seemed to take for ever I went for the ignition and started the car and quickly drove of up the kerb almost going through a shop window.

I actually was trying to be carful trying not to run this person over. I got away and was a bit shaky but completely ok. It showed me though Im probably not as hard or as invincible as i sometimes think I am.

Same goes for the airlines. I would rather have a trained professional who has probably been involved in scary situations before who will know what to do and take control. If that fails and the plane is still lost and so are the passenger's my final thought would be that at least there was security and an attempt to stop what was in progress.

If your plane is hijacked the chances of you surviving in my mind are nil. The days of fly there and your all be ok is over.

As for the checks before hand yes these do need to be stricter but how far can they go with out the public getting the hump. I see there is already an uproar over the finger print system. If you got nothing to hide what is the problem?

There are weapons now that can go through security checks such as carbon fibre knifes. These apparently remain undetected and are as sharp as steel ones. At the end of the day you dont even need a weapon like this to take a plane. A tube of smarties with a  few wires could be used as a fake bomb. Are you going to question this?

Since 9.11 I have had an interest in these people and why they are doing what they do.

Here are a few sites I visit on a regular basis which you may find interesting. Some of the ideas do seem far fetched but im sure if they had predicted 9.11 I would have said the same thing.

http://www.itshappening.com/index.php
http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/

Bren out of interest and sorry for being nosey what is it you do in Israel? I read your post about the naked woman with the cigerate and the helicopters and just wonder what line you are in.

Take care

Jamie

[Seadart Bob]

<font color='#000080'>

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Crisspy Fiver @ Jan. 06 2004,09:54)]If your plane is hijacked the chances of you surviving in my mind are nil. The days of fly there and your all be ok is over.

Agree with you their Jamie
When these terrorists board a plane they know that they are going to die,
And are determined to take as many people as possible to their deaths.

Why not have someone who is trained and paid to have a go.
Your chances of survival are nil without a marshal.

Fingerprint and photos no problem, It’s only the criminal element that need to object.

A touch of 1984 perhaps?

It seems to me for the better.

Dive and fly safe.

Cheers
Bob

[Sean]

The role of sky marshals will have to be in my humble opinion X forces (SAS, SBS) maybe even X police or a few of the other SF.. There are not many other who have used a weapon in anger and lets be honest here you will have to be able to KILL without hesitation. &nbsp;Not an easy choice to make.
I know a few old mates who have looked into this when it was first mentioned on the news. The training would be intense and I would suggest carried out by the SAS (they are the experts in this area).. &nbsp; The gun will be the last result and will be used when the marshal has a clear Kill shot. &nbsp;
However consider the options you have some total committed terrorist that has somehow got something on board the aircraft this person is willing to die for the cause, I would rather risk depressurising the plane and maybe a few innocent passengers, than sit back and watch

[aclivity]

<font color='#810541'>I'm concerned about sky marshals for the reasons expressed earlier in the thread - fine if they are highly trained, motivated professionals who regularly brush up on their close quarters combat type stuff, but if the present trends for government outsourcing continued we'd end up with muppet outsourcing companies in charge, who seem to hire people based on pulse and CO2 creation (Group 4 prison transport anyone?).

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Sean @ Jan. 06 2004,11:26)]I would rather risk depressurising the plane and maybe a few innocent passengers, than sit back and watch

On this point, if you accept that the whole planeload is at risk from terrorists, then captains should fly them into the ground (unpopulated areas of course).  No gun required.  Perhaps that is going too far, (before anyone flames me for that, it was simply a dramatic device to grab attention) but Bren's post earlier mentioned an El-Al plane being flown in a steep dive to dislodge the attacker.  Most times I've flown recently I've kept my seatbelt on (short haul flights in Europe) and in fact I think - can't be sure as I tune out for the safety announcements - they recommend you keep your belt on but loosened a bit?  So if the pilot can do such things as steep dives or climbs (or treat the passengers to some weightless time in parabolic curves as used by Nasa in the 'vomit comet') then the only people not strapped in should be the cabin crew and the attacker chappy.

hmmm ........ stream of consciousness drying up now .......

[DanE]

Always keep your seatbelt done up.

This time last year I was on a flight which suddenly hit turbulance and lost a lot a hieght. &nbsp;It was during the drinks run and a number of cabin staff and passengers where injured.

The ceiling was dripping with liquid where drinks had left the cups.

That has happened a few times on flights I've been on, although that was the the worst.

dan.

[Adrian Kelland]

I'm another one who always wears the seat belt. Too many injuries of passengers when the plane hits sudden turbulence.

There seems to be a general assumption here that the terrorists are quite happy to die. IIRC most hijacks have been about getting a desired result (money/free prisoners) and the escape of the hijackers. I think there have been hijacks since Sept 11 2001 that have been like this. The threat of Marshalls may prevent this kind of problem, but I wonder about the do or die type. Once the Marshall has shown him/herself, they have to disable all the hijackers - don't sound easy to me - thinks gunfight &amp; crossfire at 30,000 feet. And passengers have survived most hijacks, many even survived one that crashed on water, only to drown wearing inflated jackets IIRC.

Crispyfiver - I have always looked on central locking and central OPENING. With regard to the finger print issue, once they have the info, they wont get rid of it. I don't know how they indend to prevent misuse of this data, say overwriting a criminals fingerprint with yours in the database.

The likely effect is that the do or die terrorists will change tactics, say use cargo planes or drive fuel tankers into buildings.

Adrian

[darthmoll]

<font color='#0000FF'>i am all for it, El Al prove the point, but they also have a three hour check in, these things go hand in hand.

[String]

Im still firmly unconvinced by the El Al analogy - i can name a large number of airlines, all bigger than El-Al without air martials who have also not been hijacked in the same time frame since El Al started carrying.

Also, cant remember who wrote the above about in a hijack you are definately going to die - statistically in a hijack you have a far higher % of living than the opposite.

Im also firmly unconvinced 1 air marshall can subdue 5 or 6 hijackers armed with sharp implements and/or hostages in a confined space.

[Adrian Kelland]

Another point, the hijackers plan for the Marshall. One or two set and start the hijack - how long before the Marshall starts planning what to do. If I was a hijack planner, I would keep a reserve team to take out the Marshall once they have shown themselves.

Also whats the odds that a Marshall will turn a financial/political hijack into a suicide version?

As has been said many time regarding anti-terrorist actions 'We have to get lucky every time, the terrorists only have to get lucky once'

And how many idiots have I had to tell that the jet escorts are NOT for the plane's security?

Adrian