While it will prove impossible to secure the entire nation, and while I loathe to prepare for yesterday’s terrorists attacks, it is obvious that we need to secure our airplanes better.
Without confidence in our air system, and without quick and easy service, our economy will suffer.
While I have no desire to be trapped in a pressurized box with 300 gun-toting passengers, I do think that we need to be working on ways to empower the passengers instead of finding ways to ensure they are all defenseless sheep. I’m going to take a leap of faith and assume that this Washington Times article hasn’t fallen victim to an internet hoax, and assume that their story is real.
This is a speech that the pilot gave before take-off:
So here is my solution to hijacking:
Bring everything back to the way it was on 9/10, with these exceptions:
[1] All carry-on baggage and luggage gets X-rayed through a machine where the examiners can’t even see the passengers. Have the x-ray sent to several monitors where different people who are seperated from each other are watching the monitors. Send test luggage through several times an hour and monitor the success rate of each examiner. Pay these people more than minimum wage.
[2] Put a door between the pilot and the passengers that is time locked and can only be opened by the pilots after the plane is on the ground.
[3] Give the passengers the option to arm themselves with something the airline provides. I’m not thinking about guns, but I’m not sure where I would draw the line. Wooden Billy Clubs seem to be a given in my mind. I could see knives and possibly even tasers. Raise prison sentences for anyone who gets in a fight on the airplane.
I’m not afraid of the average guy next to me. I am not under any assumption that the average guy suddenly becomes a monster if he has access to a weapon, so I don’t see a major safety problem in empowering the passengers. By limiting our freedoms and responding with fear to their attacks, we are letting them chip away at our lives.
To every attack they can muster, our only hope is to respond by empowering and trusting our citizens instead of boxing us in with more and more restrictions designed to protect us.
I didn’t find an entry at snopes, but that speech seems apocryphal to me. The “instructions” the pilot receives regarding reaction to a hijacking would come from the FAA, and are specifically not discussed due to the obvious risk of providing intelligence information to would-be hijackers. Though the presentation does seem to be glurge, I will say that the idea of resisting hijackers at all costs certainly seems to be the best coarse of action. Do you happen to have a link to the article?
I’m going to call your armed passenger idea “Wild West Airlines.” Perhaps if passengers have a disagreement, they can fight it out at ‘high noon’ in the main isle. Have you forgetten the all too recent reports of rage and temper tantrums on passenger planes? We can’t arm every yahoo and lock them in an aluminum box.
Wow. I was thinking of the taser idea last night. I’m not even sure excatly what they are, but I know they can immobilize a person. As long as they can’t break a window or kill somebody, I am having trouble coming up with a good reason why passengers can’t be empowered, as suggested by the OP. I mean, they can’t take away our fists and teeth.
That means the passenger compartment essentially becomes a direct democracy, with the majority of passengers ruling, by brute force if necessary.
So as long as the passenger:terrorist ratio is at least 20:1, short-rage non-lethal weapons are not really a viable risk to the passengers as a whole. Sure, a terrorist could grab a taser and say “take this plane to cuba or I’ll stun the stewerdess!” but he’d probably get laughed at. On the other hand, several passengers with tasers against one or two terrorists…
So to answer Fear Itself, I’d have to say that I am not automatically opposed to non-lethal weapons like tasers or mace. Unless somebody can show me what real damage they could do to a large number of the passengers or how they could be used to gain access to the cabin.
Both TASER[sup]TM[/sup] and Mace[sup]TM[/sup] are brand names.
A TASER[sup]TM[/sup] uses air pressure to fire a cluster of electrodes at a target, which are then electrified so as to cause the target’s muscles to lock up. It can cause burns if the high-voltage electricity arcs across the target’s skin, and is next to useless at penetrating heavy clothing.
Mace[sup]TM[/sup] is a personal teargas dispenser. Recent opinion seems to be that Pepper Spray acts faster than teargas, and does not have as many long-term side effects.
This can already happen. Passengers can already have fistfights over disagreements. They can pick up a beer bottle from the beverage cart break it over somebody’s head. By the way, what kind of disagreements usually erupt on a plane at 30,000 feet? I’m not being catty, really wondering what the answer is to this question. It seems to me that 99.9% of the passengers wouldn’t have any strong feelings other than getting from A to B without crashing.
Regarding the recent “air rage” incidents, suppose there is a nutcase who freaks out & starts beating up on people with his blackjack*. Fine with me, as long as I get to have a blackjack too.
*[sub]Blackjack may or may not be a brand name.[/sub]
I think that all we would really need is a door that is designed so that if it is destroyed the plane is crippled. Combine that with an armed guard sitting on the pilots side and thats all you really need. More security wont help IMHO.
Attrayant: I am not sure what drives these wingnuts, but there seems to be a myriad of things that set them off: http://airtravel.about.com/library/news/blairrage.htm . Bible thumping, sexual assault of flight attendants, a man who did break a vodka bottle over someone’s head, spitting on passengers, throwing bottles at a child, etc…
Maybe you could defend yourself if need be, but what about a flight attendant or a child? Besides that is not the point. IMHO, given the large number of reports of passengers going berserk, weapons are not the answer.
Step one is to toughen cockpit doors. That’s a good idea and easy to implement.
But, I think the best protection we have is ourselves. Very few people will now sit back and let a terrorist take complete control of the plane. From now on, a terrorist will have to plan on controlling a full blown riot by 100 passengers, not an easy thing to do.
Not knowing much about personal pepper spray devices, but I thought they were not aerosol, more like a foam. So there are some specifics to be worked out. I am still leaning towards empowering the passengers. And the Airline Pilots Association seems to be weighing in on that side too:
Of course that’s not the same thing as saying “give them billy clubs”, but it’s a big step in that direction.
I completely agree. However, given the events of 9/11, I for one have no desire either to take an airplane flight in which no one is armed (unless of course we can expand the definition of “armed” to include anything that can possibly be used as a weapon, and have a 100% guarantee, which of course we can’t). At a bare minimum the flight crew should be armed, and have some training in firearms usage. Heck, just by getting on the plane, you have already decided to entrust these people with your life. Armed security guards (“Sky Marshals”) also sound like a good idea to me. Both of these things are proposed in this article.
Another proposal made there, which I for one think deserves to at least be considered, is to permit persons with valid state-issued concealed carry permits to carry their weapons aboard the plane. This is bound to be controversial, of course. In fact, when I posted this same link to the “Could the Second Amendment have prevented…” thread and asked for comments, people simply dismissed it as “lunacy”. I am hoping to get some more intelligent responses here.
In anticipation of two objections: The author proposes to allow only specially designed pre-fragmenting ammunition, which can penetrate the human body, but not the hull of an aircraft. And second, please note that “people with concealed carry permits” does not equal “everybody”. I write this in anticipation of the all too likely event that someone will respond to this by asking, “Do you really want to be locked in a pressurized cabin where everybody is armed to the teeth and capable of popping the hull just by pulling a trigger?”
I have three responses to this: Amen, Amen, and dammit, Amen!
Well, like Yogi Berra(?) once said, if it ain’t true, it oughta be.
I would add, in conjunction with the test luggage, pay these people large cash awards for actually spotting the test luggage with the hidden weapons. That’ll keep’em on their toes. I really don’t think we have the luxury here to do anything but pay-for-performance.
The main problem with this is, what if there is some accident in the cockpit which disables the crew? If there is someone on board that knows how to fly the plane (a scenario from a shlock disaster movie, I know, but it could happen), that person will need to be able to get in.
There are also more prosaic concerns. They will need food in there, and toilet facilities, and on long flights, a relief crew and a place to sleep.
This is clearly where we need to focus our attention. Billy clubs sounds like a good idea. I would prefer that to knives, personally. As far as tasers and more exotic weapons go, if we are talking about arming all the passengers, we will need to have something that requires no special training to use.
Good idea.
Unfortunately, far too many people still indulge in this fallacy, at a time when we no longer have the luxury of indulging in it.
Again, amen.
What I just said.
That’s the idea.
Please read the article the link for which I have provided above, and my comments on it.
Speaking just for myself, I would rather fly “Wild West Airlines” than “Pacifist Airlines”, but I hope we can come to some compromise.
At least you are trying, in the other thread I mentioned they aren’t making the effort :D. I won’t quote the rest of your post, just say that I agree with it.
Amen, and I seem to be saying that a lot here…I am gonna have a church flashback soon :D.
I can defend myself, because I am relatively large and strong. Others are not, which is why in order to defend themselves they may need weapons.
This is rather simplistic. If the question is, “How can a person who is relatively small and weak defend against an attack by someone who is going ‘berserk’?”, then the answer most certainly is “weapons”.
Let’s hope so. Speaking for myself, if I am in that riot, I’d like to have something more than my fists.
Good point. This is the sort of constructive criticism we need. Does anyone know anything about airline air recirculating systems?
(And I see in preview that Attrayant has already begun to address pldennison’s objection. Excellent.)
I would like to preface by saying that, in the event of a hijacking, I would fight like hell, and would hope my fellow passengers would also. That being said, I am still unclear on what you mean by “empowering the passengers”; does this or does this not mean giving them weapons, or allowing them to bring their own? If the answer is yes, I would like to know if you would supply/allow weapons to the terrorists as well, for as we know, at the beginning of the flight, they are just law abiding passengers too. Or perhaps you intend to just ask them to identify themselves at the beginning of the flight? Or maybe you would just "know’ them on sight?
IMHO, the whole concept of “empowering” passengers is a very thinly veiled exprssion of the gun lobby agenda, who feel that somehow, America can prevent crime if only we could all slap iron whenever we feel threatened.
To you I say, Feh!! :wally
You don’t see a safety problem with “empowering” (read: arming) passengers? As Fear Itself said, if you want to arm everyone, then how are you going to know if someone that you “empower” is not a terrorist?
This is the first incident like this in years (that I can remember) and, last I heard, they used make-shift knives made out of shaving kit components. Now if these terrorists had been taking years to prepare for the hijacking, I think they’d take the time to learn how to really use, and/or defend against, a weapon passengers were given to be “empowered.”
I’ve seen a couple of these threads calling to arm passengers so that they could “defend” themselves against terrorist attacks. It seems like all of you people supporting “empowering” passengers are forgetting the cases of air rage that were popping up. If someone had a weapon and got a case of “air rage” someone would end up getting hurt. I would guess that having an aggressive passenger, or a bystander, injured by one of the “empowered” passengers would be a real pain for the airlines in today’s litigous society. I’m no insurance agent, but I would also think that insurance premiums for the airlines would go up if the passengers were “empowered.”
Maybe we should just stick with beefing up security and not relying on turning regular travelers into the air police. If you gun owners are having a rough time now, and are worried about Big Brother :rolleyes: taking away your guns, just wait until someone gets hurt on a flight, that would really cause some head aches.
And if you really want someone on the flight to be armed, maybe we should take a page from the book of the airline that puts trained commandos on their flights (al jai? something like that).
It seems to me that arming passengers will, ultimately, do nothing to deter future hijackings.
A dedicated would-be suicide bomber need only jump through the proper hoops: go to flight school, get the proper training, become a licensed commercial airline pilot, fly for a couple years as a “regular joe”, then when the time is right, plunge his flight into the White House. Score: Terrorists - 1, Gun-toting passengers - 0. No hijacking required, no passenger involvement whatsoever. If necessary, he could kill or incapacitate the rest of the flight crew (especially if everyone is now armed) beforehand.
I think we need to consider both of these ideas, in their various permutations, on the merits. We may wind up deciding to reject one or both of them, but they ought to be considered.
Under proposals to arm all passengers, potential hijackers would be armed, which is a valid objection, though I am not at all sure if it is a fatal one. It may depend on the type of weapon, an issue I think we need to discuss more.
In the proposal made in the article I cited, persons with valid CCW permits would be armed, which would exclude persons who are not US citizens (ie the hijackers of 9/11), persons with criminal records, and, I would presume if we develop a policy to let these people carry guns on airplanes, persons guilty of any kind of “air rage”-type incident, even if that didn’t invalidate the CCW.
A crude straw man, the word “Feh”, and a specialized smiley do not an argument make. If this is truly just “IMHO”, why don’t you take it to the forum called “IMHO”?
This is one of the straw man attacks I specifically foresaw in my first post, and boy howdy, it didn’t take long to pop up. I for one am not necessarily, or even probably, suggesting that “everyone” be armed. Let me turn your question around. Do you think no one on an airplane, not even the cockpit crew or security guards like they have right now on El Al, should be armed?
This is another valid objection, but again I don’t think it is a fatal one. It likely depends on the weapon. Is there a way that 4 or 5 terrorists armed with razor blades can overcome a hundred people armed with billy clubs? I don’t think all the training in the world would even those odds.
This objection is covered in the article I cited. Please read it.
That’s another valid objection, but if we have to change our liability laws in order to make events like the ones of 9/11 less likely, then we damned well better do that.
What are the insurance premiums for El Al, which has armed guards on each flight? Do you think the premiums would be higher or lower if they dropped those guards?
Maybe we should, and maybe we shouldn’t, that’s what we are trying to figure out. I really don’t think you have made much of a case for your position though.
I will reply in the same vein, and wonder, why is it that no one is talking about banning box-cutters now? Look at how many people have been hurt by them. Won’t someone please think of the children?
Oh yes: :rolleyes:
(And on a late note, while previewing this I came upon an article in Salon magazine stating that the hijackers apparently joined a gym a few weeks prior to the attack, no doubt to prepare themselves physically for the hijacking. So when are we going to ban gyms and weightlifing equipment, won’t someone please think of the children, etc, etc. And again: :rolleyes: )
I believe it’s El Al. So you do want some of the people on a plane to have guns? But what if one of those trained commandos gets a case of air rage?
If this scenario is possible at all, it is possible now, regardless of what steps we take to arm passengers. I for one think that the supply of suicide bombers willing and able to go through this kind regimen was quite limited even before the 9/11 attacks, if it existed at all. After the attacks, I presume that security and background checks on candidates for airline pilot training will be sufficient to prevent it.
The issue of whether or not I am right deserves its own thread I think. It is a fascinating idea.
Since this thread is titled “My Solution – Archie Bunker Lite”, I would like to suggest that the obvious solution is for youse guys to put on both socks first, then put on your shoes.
As has been noted, “Air Ragers” can already cause sufficient harm with everyday items; a beer bottle, a cup of hot coffee, a heavy briefcase, a laptop computer, etc.
Letting non-lethal weaponry like billy clubs, stun guns and the like wouldn’t be a really significant leap up the force continuum. Although I am opposed to chemical devices, Mace or oleoresin (pepper spray). It is all-to-readily an area effect weapon, and airplanes aren’t noted for the best air quality to start with.
The fumes can get into the upholstery and linger for quite a while, possibly causing severe respiratory distress to a great number of people.
The only possible objection I can think of at this hour is that aircraft are somewhat confined, so that even a small group of terrorists/hijackers, armed even with box knives, could conceivably hold off several attackers simply because only a limited number of people are physically capable of attacking at a time.
Especially at choke points like flight attendant stations, galleys and restroom cubicles.
So some form of distance weapon seems to be in order, such as billy clubs or perhaps those 18-inch long Mag-Lites. Spring batons, maybe.
I do like the idea of prefragmented rounds for firearms, also perhaps something like Glaser Safety Slugs, or bean-bag rounds for a shotgun. Not that a shotgun is what I would consider normal armaments for either passengers, flight crew or any type of “air police”, so scratch that one.
But the concept of fighting back against terrorists/hijackers somehow is certainly more appealing to this citizen than sitting quietly and being flown to my destiny against my will.
But the bottom line is this: given the ingenuity of last week’s attack, whatever we do, some clever terrorist will think of a way to counter, even if it’s bribing the minimum wage baggage loaders to slip a “suitcase” onto a baggage cart at some point past the security checkpoints.
Or infiltrating sympathetic people onto airport payrolls as baggage handlers. Or of slipping sympathetic people onto airport security, and the terrorists line up at their “moles” security station, so he can look the other way at the carry-on full of knives, guns, grenades or explosives.
Simpy blowing up the airplane, while not as spectacular as piloting several of them into prominent buildings, will accomplish the same general effect: disruption.
And no amount of personal armament, regardless of lethality, will prevent the bomb you know nothing about from exploding once the terrorist decides the time is right and activates the detonator.
We can take steps to prevent that specific type of attack that happened last week; we are far from being able to say with any degree of certainty that we are “safe” from terrorist attacks on, or utilizing, aircraft.