It seems ObL only has to release a few emails that will fall into the US electronic webs and loads of flights are cancelled… no need for explosives it seems anywmore.
Here’s a crazy idea on the sky marshals bit.
Why can’t they carry something besides a gun? I mean, aside from the issue of depressurizing the cabin and killing everyone anyways, it’s pretty doubtful that the terrorists are going to walk through security with AKs. And if they do, some guy with a Glock is hardly going to foil their plans. Give the marshals tasers, batons, machetes, whatever the host nation is cool with. Problem solved it would seem.
OK; I tried hard but I could only ger sketchy information about what kind or arms the (at least US) sky marshals would use, it´s a common handgun with special ammunition that can´t pierce the fuselage, good thing; it seems that it has an effective range of 6 feet, :rolleyes: You know, if I stretch my arms I span almost 7 feet, that doesn´t seem like an awful lot of an effective range to me, I guess a shooting would be like that movie gag of two men shooting at each other and ducking behind the same box/barrel/whatever.
The projectile seems to be a rolled bullet, that unravels as it flies, so after a few feet it becomes a pancake like bullet, incapable of doing much damage either to flesh or aluminum.
Anyone has more information about this?
That is a bit of an urban-legend, perpetuated by the movie Goldfinger, among others.
A pierce on a pressurized fuselage is a recipe for disaster, not an Urban Legend.
The rush of air through the opening can rip the bullet hole into a larger gap, if the damage propagates through the structure, well, it´s not pretty.
Oh, come on, people! Both Mir and the current space station have developed leaks (in the case of the Mir, from a collision with a supply ship), suffered pressure loss, and no one injured, much less killed. If a space ship can handle it, so can an airplane.
Is depressurization in a pressurized airplane at high altitude a problem? Yes. No joke, it’s a very serious situation. But rarely fatal if proper action is taken. Airliners have survived holes much larger than a bullet hole. One notable case involved a panel blowing out in a cockpit and one pilot being sucked halfway out of the airplane - he got cold and little windburned, but no one died and the plane didn’t explode.
The Aloha Airlines flight where there was catastrophic damage and depresurization - basically, a big chunk of the fuselage peeled off, taking a flight atendant standing unbuckled in the aisle with it - still landed with most unharmed.
This isn’t the movies. Even if an airliner acquires a hole at 30,000 feet (for whatever reasons) it will not spontaneously disassemble itself, or blow up, or even necessarially suck everyone out of the cabin. Odds are that everyone will arrive on the ground in one piece. They may need new underwear, but they’ll survive.
Even if a bullet took out, say, an entire window, I’d rather lose one or two people than a whole plane load, or have a 9/11/01 outcome. But even if an airliner did lose a window I doubt anyone would be killed by the loss of pressure.
As for specific weaponry - everything has its good points and its bad points. Guns provide a lot of “stopping” power - one good shot and the Bad Guy is no longer trouble. Tasers might be another good choice, but close-in weapons like batons or clubs not such a good choice - you want the skymarshalls to have distance weapons to minimize the chances of the Bad Guy taking the weapon away or getting to the Good Guy. Any distance weapon could hit a passenger rather than a Bad Guy. Tasers only carry so much charge, and they’re harder to reload than a gun. Another problem with a taser is that they’re electrical - if they hit the wrong spot on an airliner they could potential due considerable damage to the airplane’s systems. There are more dangers here than simply putting a hole in the airplane. Frying the electronics can create a life-threatening situation, too. It’s really all about trade-offs
Funny no one mentioned the cost of the Air Marshalls… its been a big topic of dissent. Many say the US should pay if they so dearly want them onboard…
In the end I am more scared of an Air Marshall being overtaken and thus giving wanna be terrorists any weapon. Or badly trained or nervous air marshalls muking things up.
One reason the air marshalls cost so much is that they undergo extensive training and testing - they are far less likely to be “nervous” or poorly trained than any other law enforcement officer.
Another point that should be emphasized is that air marshalls never work alone - pairs are the minimum number, and they don’t sit side by side. In theory, should one be overtaken there will be another to assist.
Rashak Mani, can’t say I agree with your premise. I would prefer to have 1 or more air marshals aboard the plane I’m on if an attack is made. I’m not going down without a fight and anything that helps my position is a good thing. A marshal armed with frangible ammunition makes me feel more safe, not less.
Another down side to a taser is that heavy clothing (such as people in the Northern Hemisphere are routinely wearing at this time of year) can effectively insulate the Bad Guy from the tazer’s electrical charge. A thick woolen sweater or a down jacket can make the terrorist “taser-proof”, but such clothing won’t stop a bullet.
It seems the US government notified the European airlines which fly to the USA but not the European governments until later. I suppose tha airlines said"you better talk to our government because it’s not like we can do this without their permission. . . even if we wanted to do it which is not clear". So, in the case of Spain, Iberia tells the Spanish government and the Spanish government initiates talks with the US government. In the end the Spanish government has said no. Spanish flights to the USA will not carry armed police. If there is any risk the flight will be grounded and on flights where there is not perception of risk there will be no armed police except in very specific cases where the US might request it, but not as a general rule.
I suppose the US government might have been tempted to say “you know, we could ban all your flights to the USA” to which the European governments could have replied “you know, that would lead to banning all American flights to Europe”. So in the end, the US government is back pedaling from its early and poorly presented demands. Now it seems European flights will not be required to carry armed police. The whole thing was a waste of time which just managed to clumsily offend European governments and airlines.
You can always rely in the current govt's lack of tact and diplomacy as usual. Especially since its pretty much understood that only a few flights occasionally would require Sky Marshalls. Its in fact not that big a deal or cost if compared to Homeland Security budgets... they would be better having negotiated it behind closed doors.