Is It Time for a New "Concealed Carry" Category.........for Air Travel?

self | 09/11/01 | RightOnline

[chuknospam]

Sign me up. I'm already Fla. CCW, I'll pay for the extra training, undergo additional psyc eval, gov't background check like they do for folks with secret clearance, buy my own Glaser Safety Slugs, cost to taxpayers $0, threat to terroists, priceless!

[Shooter 2.5]

There is another thread that places the blame for this disaster on the lack of an adequate door between the cockpit and the passenger compartment. A defenseless crew and a cardboard door is a recipe for exactly what happened. America held hostage by razor blade knives.

[RightOnline]

You're on, you get my vote, and God bless ya.

[pepperdog]

The only way this will work is for concealed carry to be allowed, forget the visible armed guys (nice aiming points for hi-jackers). Until the hi-jack types are totally unsure of who might have a weapon they will continue to have the upper hand on any flight. Everywhere in this country concealed carry is allowed the criminals have retreated, this situation on aircraft has no parameters that would make it any different. It is the very fact that the criminals are guaranteed the airplane will not have any firearms on it that gives them their power.

[RightOnline]

It's true, Shooter. As I mentioned above, I'm a former "heavy" driver (for Uncle Sam, but still applies). Those doors to the cabin are a joke. Frankly, all the talk about making them "bulletproof" or "bomb-proof" (whatever the hell THAT means....) is ill-considered, IMHO. What they're saying is this: All hell can break loose in the pax area, people can be killed, bombs can be set up and detonated, etc., etc.........but the crew will be tougher to get to. What the hell does THAT do?? Seriously, what??? Nothing, is the answer. No, the answer is to keep the bastards guessing. Let THEM try to figure out, real-time, just who in that pax compartment is packing serious heat AND just happens to be seriously trained. It's called "offense" vs. "defense". Why some don't get the difference is beyond me.

[RightOnline]

Amen and amen. That's the very core of the thesis of this thread.

[longrider]

I hate to say it, but it is only going to get worse. What are you going to do to protect yourself and your family. For me and my son, we train with rifle, pistol and shotgun. I would say we fire more rds in a month than either a police officer or most in our army do in a year. And yes I have cc and I carry either Clock 23 or springfield 1911-V10. It's a crying shame that I can only carry in my state and not the whole country.

[RightOnline]

.....which makes you a solid-gold CCW-ATQ candidate. Fly with me anytime.......especially armed.

[Jesse]

Trouble with arming only the pilots is they have to open the security door to the cockpit and come out to use their weapon. I think that any pilot who wants to carry a gun should be able to but having armed passengers in addition is much better deterrent.

[scooby]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned this: just make the cockpit a totally seperate compartment with a seperate entrance. Armor plating between the cockpit and passenger compartment, so no need to arm the pilots.

Of course, the Israelis have been doing this for ages, except they have three or more sky marshalls rather than CCW. We can learn a lot from a nation that faces terrorism as a daily reality.

[Skibane]

From The Proficient Pilot II, by Barry Schiff (courtesy of a post by AntiTyrant on a related FR thread started by earplug):

Pressurization

There probably are more absurd misconceptions about aircraft pressurization than about any other aircraft system.

Consider, for example, the popular belief that a bullet shot through a pressurized fuselage will cause explosive decompression and loss of aircraft control. This is, after all, what happened to Pussy Galore and James Bond in Goldfinger when a stray bullet went through the cabin wall of their Lockheed Jetstar. Not only did they experience explosive decompression, but the aircraft went into a spin, forcing Pussy and James to parachute to safety. Totally ridiculous, but it made for good drama.

And how about the myth perpetuated by the motion picture Airport '77? After the Boeing 747 came to rest at the bottom of the Caribbean, the intrepid captain (Jack Lemmon) allayed his passengers' fear of drowning by proclaiming authoritatively, "Don't worry, folks; this airplane is pressurized!" Apparently pacified, the naive passengers headed for the piano bar to sip martinis until rescued.

Someone should have nominated this movie for the "Best Comedy of the Year" award.
...
Pressurizing an aircraft cabin (the pressure vessel) is similar to pumping air into a tire that has a controllable leak. In the case of piston-powered aircraft, pressurizing air is provided by the engine turbochargers. The "leak" consists of one or more outflow valves at the rear of the cabin. These valves allow air to escape continuously. This prevents excessive pressure from causing structural damage and provides an exit for venting stale air overboard. Pressurization is maintained by pumping in as much air as is allowed to escape.

Many believe that cabin pressure is determined by varying the amount of air pumped into the aircraft. Not so. The flow of incoming air is approximately constant. Cabin pressure is determined by the outflow valves, which modulate automatically to vary the amount of air flowing overboard and maintain the selected degree of pressurization.

In effect, the cabin always has at least one open "hole." The addition of a bullet hole, therefore, would have no effect on cabin pressure. The outflow valve(s) would compensate by closing slightly and automatically to maintain a constant flow of air through the cabin. Larger holes in the structure, however, may result in depressurization.

In the case of jetliners, the ouflow valves are so large that the loss of an entire cabin window may not affect cabin pressure significantly. (It would not be pleasant, however, to be seated next to such a window.)

Barry Schiff, with 20,000 hours in more than 225 types of aircraft, has achieved worldwide recognition for his aviation accomplishments. A verteran captain with Trans World Airlines, currently flying the Lockheed 1011, he is a contributing editor of AOPA Pilot and an award-winning author of eight books and more than 500 articles. — 1987

[RightOnline]

Bumping..........and here's to a pilot with far more hours and experience than I who supports my earlier contention.

[Dick Bachert]

Right on, Rightonline!

THE ENTIRE EPISODE COULD HAVE BEEN AVERTED HAD EACH OF THOSE PLANES HAD STRONGER COCKPIT DOORS AND THOSE FOUR CAPTAINS HAD CRUMBY $300. PISTOLS IN THEIR FLIGHT BAGS!

WE SIMPLY MUST ASK OUR "LEADERS" WHY THEY DID NOT!!

AND IF YOU DON'T LIKE THAT PLAN, ASK THE SURVIVORS OF THE 5,000 FORMER AMERICANS IF THEY WOULD AGAIN TRADE THEIR LOVED ONES TO APPEASE THE OH-SO DELICATE SENSIBILITIES OF ROSIE O'DONNELL, SARAH BRADY AND THE NUTS AT HANDGUN CONTROL. ANYBODY ELSE WONDER WHY WE HAVEN'T HEARD FROM THEM SINCE 9-11?

As America continues to reel from the catastrophic events of 9/11, we need to rethink a few things:

It’s probably time to train and ARM the cockpit crews of US carriers who agree to the program. Pilots and FOs who do not want the responsibility can be exempted. It was, after all, the folks controlling the aircraft who were the targets on Terrible Tuesday.

During the rash of hijackings of a few decades ago, the feds put armed “AIR MARSHALS” on many flights. While some correctly argued that a fuselage punctured by a bullet at 35,000 feet MIGHT – repeat MIGHT bring the plane down – hijackings fell off.

One thing we know for sure about the four craft hijacked on 9/11: They ALL CAME DOWN and THEY ALL DIED!!

And to those who will inevitably – and stupidly – argue that pilots and FOs just cannot be trusted with the decision about when it’s time to pull a trigger, better tell the up to 400 folks sitting in the back that the guys up front are judgment-impaired!

Personally, I’d prefer to take my chances with a rapid decompression than watch some madman take MY flight into a building or the ground at 500 mph. That was the final experience of 266 fellow humans on 9/11. I KNOW I – like they – won’t survive that!

And pay VERY close attention to the "solutions" being offered by those in government: They are NOT talking about REMOVING the limitations they have ALREADY placed on us as individuals to DEFEND OURSELVES. They are beginning to talk about FURTHER RESTRICTIONS on our liberties and MORE GOVERNMENT! More GOVERNMENT? The same GOVERNMENT that failed so miserably in its obligation to protect citizens that 5,000 of them died like cattle in a slaughterhouse on September 11th? THAT GOVERNMENT?? </font color=red>

It’s again the old, old story: There aren’t TOO many weapons out there. It’s that the touchy-feely, warm-fuzzy PC crowd now sees to it that all too frequently, THE WRONG PEOPLE HAVE THEM!

[RightOnline]

I just heard Senator John Kerrey, DemMass (read that as you will) on Bill O'Reilly's program propose that the Feds.........the Feds, mind you.........take over ALL security at airports, including databases, etc., etc., etc. I couldn't believe what I was hearing.

Make no mistake, y'all. There WILL be those who will use the current atmosphere to usurp more Federal power. That canNOT be allowed. I find them ghoulish as much as un-Constitutional.

[doc]

Use specially trained military as sky marshalls. We don't need to have our military all over the world doing the "meals on wheels tour". Using the military would also help keep the cost down rather than hiring sky marshalls. Instead of guns, give the military 30 to 40 ft. range taser guns. This has a couple of benefits. It will not penetrate the plane like a bullet would. Also if a terrorist is holding a knife to a hostages neck the sky marshall could use the taser both on the hostage as well as the terrorist without killing either. After the hostage is subdued use handcuffs.

[RightOnline]

See.............let's see.............reply #25 above. I'm for lethal force. You hijack, you die. Pull a knife, I pull a gun. You'll leave the aircraft........but in a body bag. Harsh? Yes. Necessary in dealing with such animals? Absolutely.

[Skibane]

Use specially trained military as sky marshalls. — See post #46 and #99. They would be expensive, there would not be nearly enough of them on any given flight, and they would not likely be present on all flights (especially the smaller ones).

We don't need to have our military all over the world doing the "meals on wheels tour". — Then why should we employ them as “passenger baby-sitters”?

Instead of guns, give the military 30 to 40 ft. range taser guns. — Memo to terrorists: Consider wearing heavy clothing.

This has a couple of benefits. It will not penetrate the plane like a bullet would. — See post #131. I believe we’ve already established that an aircraft bullet hole is overated as a hazard.

[meta]

bump

[Shooter 2.5]

You didn't read the thread before you started writing.

[TERMINATTOR]

Luke 22:36 (KJV) --Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Got sword? (M1 Garand ==>CMP)

No mercy, no quarter!
May the jihadists burn in hell for eternity!
Help speed them on their way!

Molon Labe!