And just for the sake of perspective: Exactly how many aircraft in history have been intentionally flown into buildings as acts of terrorism?
Perhaps to ensure a lessened loss of life, the building codes should be changed to prohibit the construction of any building higher than a height to which the fire department’s rescue ladders can reach.
Oh, & Joe; it’s not a “ridiculous scenario.” It’s freaking already happened that a hijacker has used a grenade. Got it now?
Minty: Better go back and reread that. I don’t believe I mentioned guns once.
I wasn’t talking about being armed. I was talking about defending yourself. And let me add, ‘defending others’. I’m talking about not going easily. Being a Todd Bingham. We have to adopt the mental attitude of being survivors. If that means carrying a gun within the law, that’s your choice. But it can also mean not walking by when you see someone being mugged, but to stand up to it.
It’s important for practical reasons, in that it’s a good defense against random attack, but it’s also important for psychological reasons - if the terrorists see our terrible resolve, they may realize that terror doesn’t work on us, and stop doing it.
Sorry for jumping to conclusions.
Whoa, never saw that one coming . . .
Your response to my OP was to introduce a scenario where the answer is a no-win one. It’s no different than saying “What good is extra check-in security if the terrorist is a security officer?” No solution is perfect, and you don’t seriously think your first response was proper, do you?
And do you understand that the skin is what holds the pressure in? That same skin that has all those holes in it, yet does not unravel itself like an aluminum can? Or, what exactly is it that you claim is holding the pressure in? And yes, the holes are filled with rivets - but I don’t need to explain what the difference is, true? Are you willing to debate structural mechanics of an airplane with me while being factual and without being sarcastic about it? Because I’ll be happy to do that too.
Fair enough, that’s your opinion.
If there are far more, why not give me the top ten that come to mind? 
You’ve posted twice about an attacker actually using a live hand grenade. You even yelled at Joe Cool, yet for some reason have not posted details which would have resolved the matter peacefully. Since you apparently will not do so, I will post what is the only occurance I can find of someone smuggling a grenade on-board in the last 10 years:
http://archives.star.arabia.com/000713/JO6.html
FTR, the hijacker was stopped by a security officer on board who shot him. Even though the grenade went off, no deaths occured. Even though “Following unsuccessful attempts to calm down the hijacker, (the hijacker)Theeb started to shoot randomly” (he was armed with a gun too) the plane did not explosively decompress. I hope this is not the instance you keep throwing out, because it doesn’t appear to support your position at all.
But let’s return to airplane security, shall we? Can I see some numbers you have crunched for your solutions of:
? Anything? Throw me a bone here…
Yes, but I think you might have a bad example. The only time I can think of a hijacking with a grenade involved was the October 17, 1977 take-down of a hijacked plane by GSG-9 in Mogadishu, where the terrorists threw two grenades durring the storming of the plane… Which detonated beneath the seats and didn’t cause any serious injuries to anyone aboard (Probably would have been a little worse if in the air). It was one of GSG-9s best opperations, in fact. One GSG-9 member lightly wounded, no hostage casualties, and one of the four terrorists captured alive.
I don’t remember, but I think the hijacking that landed in Afghanistan a while back had a single grenade involved, as well. Can’t recall for sure.
However, in neither case were the pins pulled when the terrorists brought them out in-air. Especially since it’s extremely unsafe to try to put a pin back -into- a grenade (I recall a story about a SWAT officer being critically injured when he took the pin out of a flashbang device, put it back in, and put it in his hip-pouch. It went off and nearly amputated his leg). Many grenades won’t care if you put the pin back in, as it’s already triggered and just waiting for that spoon to throw…
All things considered, I seriously doubt any terrorists would pull out a grenade and immediatly pull the pin out, and yes, it IS a “rediculous scenario”. If it weren’t, can you cite one time hijackers did just that? And seeing as how uncommon grenades are in hijackings, if -that- is the best counter-scenario here, then big deal. It’d be out of anyone’s controll anyway, so why use that as a scenario to counter AMs? It’d be like saying it’s pointless to worry about airline security because even if you stop people from hijacking it, you can’t stop someone from shooting a 727 down with a stinger SAM. Just because it wouldn’t work ALL the time doesn’t mean it’s not worth it for the MOST of the time it would help.
As for the air-rage decoy, I imagine other passengers would help out, not just the AM (Especially now, considering recent events). He/she doesn’t have to blow cover to help out with that, and what are any terrorists going to do if 6 people get up to help subdue an unrully passenger?
Not very many. Let’s keep it that way, shall we?
Is this hyperbole?
Heh… Well, make that three scenarios with grenades, and Anthracide’s even has it detonating at 20K feet with no deaths (Except the hijacker, assuming he survived the shot). Somehow, I don’t see this supporting the grenade argument here 
Hey! I’ve killed no coal whatsoever! Oh wait…I have, it’s my job. Never mind… 
Anthracite: I certainly don’t have the wherewithal to critique your economic analysis. My gut feeling though, is that it wouldn’t be that cheap. It never is. It might be useful to check out how much it costs El Al, that should give us something concrete to go on.
Also, whatever your impressions from everyone else, I certainly don’t object to the idea of AMs, visible or otherwise.
Others have contested this one well enough, I have nothing more to add except that I agree with them.
Honest to God, where do you get these ideas? “Simplicity itself”??? Tackling an armed man and taking his gun? It is theoretically possible of course, but it would be damned difficult, dangerous, and carry a high a high risk of failure. Otherwise cops wouldn’t be carrying guns around.
As to your scenario, if you think it would be that easy, why hasn’t it been tried on El Al? These terrorists hate Isreal as much as they do us, if not more. And there have been suicide bombings over there, so we know they have people willing to do it. But there has been no successful attempt to hijack an Isreali plane by taking away the weapon of one of their Air Marshalls. Why do you think that is?
Finally, I submit that your scenario, far fetched as it is already, could only work or even be tried just once. After that, with the perception that an air rager might be a covert terrorist desiring to do a kamikaze, killing everyone on board, I have a feeling air passengers would become a lot more polite. Anyone who dared to indulge in a bout of air rage would be throttled to death by fellow passengers before an Air Marshall could intervene.
It depends on how you define “weapon”. People are ingenious. Hell, you can tear up your shirt, make it into a rope, and use it as a garrote. Not much less efficient than box cutters I think. No one would have thought before 9/11 that something like that could be used to hijack a plane. The ultimate weapon is the human mind, and there is no way to make the terrorists check that at the door. I think you are whistling past the graveyard here.
Cite?
(And on preview I see Anthracite has done your work for you. An interesting post, that. Please read it carefully.)
Please see my response to minty green above. If it is so easy, why hasn’t it been done on El Al?
In the post to which you are responding you were asked for a cite that a bullet hole can cause catastrophic decompression on a plane. I note with interest that you chose to ignore that and respond to something else.
For the Sky Marshall scenario, why is this a bad thing? Why has this fact not caused problems for El Al, or other airlines that do or have in the past had armed Sky Marshalls on their planes?
Such as?
I don’t normally say “me too” but I will here. This is the whole thing in a nutshell. We can’t possibly guard with 100% certainty against every possible hijacking scenario, but we can and should take steps to improve the odds in our favor.
I find that I have to agree with Sam Stone regarding his analysis of the whole prevent hijacking thing. And I saw a clip on one of the news networks that featured security people confiscating nail clippers (deadly weapons, you know).
Tenebras
Also, what exactly does El Al do? Everybody keeps talking about how great they are and how they’ve never had a hijacking. Not that that is ultimate proof. Has Alaska Air? What about Cathay Pacific? For all I know they could have. But anyway…
I think that before everybody gets on the high and mighty side about El Al having no hijackings, it needs to be absolutely clear that hijacking one of their flights is more attractive than, say, blowing up stores on the ground level. As far as I know, the basic MO of hijackers in the past was to take the plane and not give it back until somebody gave you something. I get the feeling that the Isralis would not be particularly nice to deal with in that regard. Could be wrong, it’s happened before. Granted ahead of time that ripping off one of their planes would have done a lot in the “stick it to the man” department, is there anything else?
Also, as a part of the general inquiry into El Al’s sterling methods, does anybody know how much they pay for this fabulous record?
Tenebras
Why not use some sort of incapacitating agent (no, not a baseball bat; something more along the lines of a chemical) on all the passengers? You could have 1 AM per flight, in case someone takes some sort of pre-emptive antidote. Any passengers that have allergies to said agent would be given either a different agent or be allowed to fly awake in a secure section of the plane, with no carry-on luggage and the contents of their pockets searched. Just a random thought at 1 in the morning; feel free to poke holes in it…hopefully it won’t explosively decompress. (Ducks and runs)
Damn, you’re an idiot.
What exactly does El Al do? Maybe (& yes, this is my opinion) it’s that it’s not El Al but the fear of the Israeli military doing a repeat of the raid on Entebbe (example, not that they’ll automatically raid Entebbe if the hijacked airline lands elsewhere) that keeps the terrorists’ hands off of Israel’s national airline.
Does such a thing exist?
How many police officers are shot with their own service weapons, Al? It’s been a while since I’ve seen that particular statistic, but it’s a significant number. “Simplicity” is hyperbople, but it’s quite possible for a group of hijackers to surprise and overwhelm an air marshall if they know who he is. Possession of a gun does not turn the bearer into Superman.
And I most certainly believe that things would have ended differently in PA had the hijackers been armed with guns instead of boxcutters. That’s not a slam on the bravery of the passengers who fought back–it’s a simple realization of the fact that an armed hijacker can shoot and kill the first half dozen or so attackers before they get anywhere near the cockpit. That makes it much, much harder for a limited number of passengers to fight back, doesn’t it?
Yes, it does. Depressurize the cabin.
Interesting option, but you would also have to supress the automatic dropping of the oxygen masks as well, and make sure the pilots turned their oxygen on. Plus, any controlled depressurization would not be very fast, and maybe the hijackers would realize that and start killing everything in sight. It is still an interesting option with possibilities, though.
I’ve considered all the various options and concluded that there is only one guaranteed solution to the problem of hijacking: