Posted on 08/14/2002 2:17:23 PM PDT by NEWwoman
Wyoming man with loaded gun arrested at San Jose airport Source: kcbs Publication date: 2002-08-14
SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) -- A Wyoming man arrested after airport security screeners discovered a loaded semi-automatic handgun in his carryon luggage was being held in Santa Clara County jail Tuesday night.
William Simmons, 57, was arrested around 2:45 Tuesday afternoon at Mineta San Jose International Airport after a screener found the gun in his luggage and notified police, said Officer Joseph Deras, a spokesman with the San Jose Police Department.
Simmons was being held on charges of possessing a concealed loaded firearm, Deras said. Simmons was uncooperative with police and had to be forcibly arrested, he said. Simmons was taken to a nearby hospital after complaining he was hyperventilating. He was examined and released, Deras said.
The airport was not evacuated because security screeners found the weapon before Simmons was past the checkpoint, Deras said.
(10:35p.m.)
You have just insulted the memory of three thousand innocent Americans who died September 11th 2001. Americans who would be alive today if any of their fellow passengers were armed.
Not quite sure what you're getting at here, but I'm as familiar with guns as the next guy, at least to the point that I can hit what I'm aiming at with a rifle, shotgun, and pistol, and I've read enough solid information provided by documented experts in aviation design to know that "explosive decompression" from gunfire is a Hollywood myth, promulgated largely by anti-RKBA factions as a reason to keep Americans disarmed.
The main voice asserting for "explosive decompression" via gunfire in this thread is a self-proclaimed expert, who has provided neither his bona fides, nor any evidence of any real-life instances of "explosive decompression" by gunfire.
In short, we have a set of anonymous bits traveling over the Internet that insist "trust me, I know what I'm talking about".
Thanks, but no thanks.
It works? It works????
Try explaining it to the relatives of those three thousand dead Americans, who would be alive today if not for that practice.
It works???
Oh, that's right. It does work! It works to keep the good guys unarmed, defenseless, and easy pickins on 9/11. The damn terrorists knew that "it works", otherwise they would not have been so foolhardy as to even consider an attempt to take over those planes.
Yup, you Victim Disarmament advocates can be really proud of yourselves. It works!
"So tell me again why everyone onboard a private aircraft needs a weapon?"
Nice example of hyperbole. And, nice attempt at reframing the discussion away from the subject of deterrence.
You sound like the "No Nukes!" hippies who -- if listened to -- would have ended the cold war in a heartbeat. Of course, it would have been our heartbeat, because if not for our nuclear deterrent, the USSR would have snuffed us out like a candle.
"Or are you next going to suggest that all airlines need to be government run, since thats what you are aiming towards."
Don't put words in my mouth. If you're reduce to flogging a strawman, then kindly do it in private, OK?
You've demonstrated it with such aplomb that I really needn't say anything about it. But, I strive to be tactful when discussing the mental acuity of others.
The principle is called deterrence. The reason for arming civilians is NOT so that they will go around shooting people. The reason for arming civilians is because when civilians are armed, the goblins will go elsewhere to find prey.
I've already explained this, and it's not exactly breaking news. It was the principle that kept us alive during the cold war, it was the reason we won the cold war -- without firing a shot -- and it's the reason that crime is going down in states that have legalized citizen carry.
The more you cry the airborne version of "gunfire in the streets if people are allowed to carry!" the more you come off as an anti-RKBA troll who is here to disrupt.
"I am free to carry a concealed weapon in many places, but there are restrictions, and for the most part they are there for a good reason. I can't carry into places that serve alcohol, big public gatherings like concerts, and airports."
Why is it "a good reason" for you to be prohibited from defending yourself in precisely those locations where you are more likely to come in contact with predatory goblins? (Whom, in your ideal world, recognize the fact that they're in a world of low-hanging fruit when they enter those venues!)
First of all, I don't have to go to places where I feel like someone would view me as 'low hanging fruit' ... for the most part, churches, concerts, etc. (the areas where I can't carry) tend to be pretty much crime free from what I have seen.
My take on restricting CCW in bars and places that serve alcohol is an attempt to deal with the fact that people drinking alcohol tend to lose some of their faculties, hence we don't let them drive drunk. I don't want to handle a firearm when I have been drinking, and I'm not keen on having 'Joe the angry drunk' packing a .45 when he has had one too many. And most of the places that I would choose to go that allow alcohol also have some pretty decent security, so I have never felt threatened in those places.
Airports are a known entity at this point. The original article here is about someone who was very careless. The 'I didn't know I had a loaded gun in my carry-on' excuse is totally lame, and someone that careless should not handle a gun. Period.
Again, it isn't a perfect world, and strictly speaking 'shall not be infringed' means exactly what it says ... still, I am comfortable with the way CCW is written in Georgia.
God, I'm so glad I abandoned California years ago. What a stupid 'Rat place!
The 17s had a service altitude of around 35,000 feet - about the same cruise altitude as a modern airliner, but without the pressure body. Most missions were flown between 20,000 and 30,000 feet - from 3.7 to about 5.6 miles up - unpressurized. Go read Flying Fortress by Jablonski, and look how far away the ground is on those low altitude missions.
Even if they caused a sudden depressurization that would be no big deal.
No big deal to who?
I won't appeal to any authority except documented, web-linked facts, which should be a relief in this thread.
It's a commonly accepted figure that airliners are generally pressurized to about 8,000 feet altitude or less, or an internal pressure of 22.22 inches of mercury, or 10.9 psi.
Flying at the usual 35,000 feet, the outside air pressure is about 7.04 inches of mercury, or 3.5 psi.
This means that the pressure differential between the inside and outside of the plane is 7.4 psi, and according to page 6 of this document, the outflow valve has a maximum cabin pressure to outside pressure differential of 8.6psi, and the cabin air is completely exchanged for outside air (even including recirculation) around 12.5 times per hour, and at cruise, the lowest pressure bleed on the engine's turbine produces 30psi.
For comparison's sake, 7.4psi is around the low end of the typical inflation pressure of a basketball. Now, looking at this page containing the mechanical property data for various aluminum alloys, the lowest yield strength (force above which material is permanently deformed) is 5,000 psi for 1/2" sample.
Aluminum honeycomb, a common component of airplanes these days, has a transverse plate shear strength of 65.3psi at a 19mm cell size and 0.064mm wall thickness, and higher for smaller cell sizes.
So basically, what you're saying when you say that there could be a James Bond, suck-you-out-of-the-plane scenario if a .45 caliber bullet penetrated a pressurized fuselage, is that air leaking through that hole at a 7.4 psi pressure differential would develop enough force on the aluminum plate and honeycomb materials surrounding the hole to overcome a minimum of 65.3psi transverse plate shear strength.
Leaving all this aside, there's plenty of bullets available that won't penetrate an airplane fuselage unless fired directly at close range - Glasers, to name one - making this whole discussion utterly moot.
The most famous example of explosive decompression in an airliner was the 1950's era Comet, which split open like a ripe tomato due to metal fatigue, not a half-inch round hole.
In 1988, a 36 centimeter (14.1 inch) hole in the fuselage of an airplane at 31,000 feet resulted in ZERO fatalities and a safe landing. In 1986, a passenger detonated a GRENADE in a rear lavatory at 33,000 feet, causing depressurization, and again ZERO fatalities and a safe landing.
And you're worried about a 9mm or .45" hole in the plane? Come on.
If the guy had a valid CA concealed carry permit, he would have been permitted to have the loaded firearm inside the airport. Once he decided to pass it through a security checkpoint enroute to the aircraft, he would have required another fairly lengthy form to be filled out and approved. You can take a firearm if you are carrying classified material with a briefcase cuffed to your wrist. The guy from Wyoming met none of the criteria for passing a loaded firearm through the checkpoint. Felony dumb.
BTW, I sign the declaration and lock it inside the box containing the firearm. That box is then locked inside the suitcase. NEVER attach the declaration to the outside of the suitcase. It says "STEAL ME" loud and clear.
When I have a firearm in my luggage, I make a bee line to the claim area and grab the suitcase ASAP.
Nope. Didn't say anything about James Bond. Didn't say anything about anyone being sucked out of an aircraft, didn't say anything about the aircraft skin peeling open like a tomato. Didn't even imply it. What I did say was "There's enough pressure to go around - until you start ventilating the pressure body - then you don't have nearly enough pressure. Nothing like an explosive decompression to really make your day." Having been through one (and obviously having survived - no James Bond, no one getting sucked out of the aircraft, no aircraft opening like a tomato), I would prefer not to go through one again.
Unfortunately, I can't control what people read into two simple sentences.
I gather that the cabin air bypass valve is about a square foot. A half inch hole is considerably less than that. Wouldn't the cabin air system be capable of overcoming a small half-inch leak considering that the low pressure bleed operates at 30psi and the high-pressure bleed operates at considerably more than that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.