If the pilot is still in control of the plane, passengers should attack the hijackers while letting the pilot fly the plane. Any hijacker who kills or otherwise disables the pilot, however, must be presumed to have the worst of intentions.
All this is assuming that one of the hijackers is in control of the cockpit and said gung-ho passengers also want to jump him, even if no one else knows how to fly and land the plane.
Any hijacker who wants to fly to Cuba will have the pilot fly him there. If a hijacker takes over the plane, it is almost certainly going to be better to attack the hijacker (at the severe risk of crashing the plane) than to let the hijacker fly where he's going. The one case where it may be good to hold off is if the plane is over an urban area but seems destined to leave it. In that case, it may be better to delay the attack until any crash is unlikely to cause serious ground casualties.
The point is that the courage on Flt. 93 was bolstered by the absolute knowledge of what their hijackers were going to do with the plane and that they were going to die anyway. I admire their actions and hope that I would do what I could under the same circumstances. But next time, the goals of the hijackers may be different and all aboard could be killed in vain. I realize that it will be a gamble and that it's best to err on the side of saving those who can be saved on the ground. I'm just concerned that a lot of people could end up needlessly dead, if hijackers, using a fake bomb, just want to relocate to Cuba.
If a hijacker just has a fake bomb, passengers will almost certainly be able to jump him without crashing the plane. What risk do you see in attempting to do so?
With my reservations now aired and awaiting further flaming by those far braver than I, I'd just like to add that it seems as though the antique mirrors and nail clippers could be consigned to the customers' checked baggage and that babies could wear Pampers, leaving those dastardly diaper pins at home. No carry-ons and a walk through the metal detectors would relieve the security from destroying nail files and priceless heirlooms for the most part.
Checked baggage is really a pain for short trips. It also poses serious risk that the items will not arrive intact at their destination. And please, tell me how tweezers endanger anyone on the aircraft.
That might only leave plastic explosives and chemical weapons to worry about.
And knives, either the stone-age type or modern ceramic equivalents.
Good point, although knocking the pilot unconscious doesn't necessarily constitute murderous intent. Be that as it may, assuming the worst is what the passengers would have to do.
If a hijacker just has a fake bomb, passengers will almost certainly be able to jump him without crashing the plane. What risk do you see in attempting to do so?
The risk comes in jumping the pilot, should one of the hijackers have drugged the pilot. Considering what went on with the today's "hijacking", some assumptions might become a problem. Of course, I would hope that American air personnel would not get into that sort of miscommunication, but there's no guarantee on that.
Checked baggage is really a pain for short trips. It also poses serious risk that the items will not arrive intact at their destination. And please, tell me how tweezers endanger anyone on the aircraft.
Anything can be a weapon, as these terrorists proved with their shaving razors. I've had my luggage sent to South America when I was only going to Virginia for the weekend(got it back 2 months later). I'm well aware of the risk, but if a potential hijacker is equally and more importantly inconvenienced, I have no problem with that. Besides, tweezing and the like can be done before the trip and tweezers/nail clippers and razors can usually be purchased at one's destination.
And knives, either the stone-age type or modern ceramic equivalents.
True, although if they're checking for tweezers and nail clippers, I would hope they're checking for blades of any material.