Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Guns on Planes
-
30-12-2003 11:19am#1
Comments
-
Join Date:Posts: 26454
ffs!
I'm so annoyed that since 9/11 I can no longer bring my RPG and two M16's on board planes
This is another step towards the federal goverment taking our rights!
sorry, had to say that its just I watched one of those mad "evil federal Gov" type films last week about 9/11 and how the world gov did it.
I want my killed brain cells back now.
0 -
-
Join Date:Posts: 26454
Originally posted by Beëlzebooze
Those 'gazillion volt, make you flop around like a fish' yokes should do the trick nicely.
Tazers, plus there very cheap and you can evcen buy them on ebay, so this should save the airline industry loads of money 0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
im all for trained air marshalls but without fire arms.
Werent the september 11 terrorists armed with just knives? (or am i deluded here)
A marshall brings a firearm on board, the terrorists know who he is and manage to nick his gone (by whatever means). Suddenly instead of terrorists with knives than can only do so much damage you got a gun wielding maniac in a confined space at 20,000m. Guns and airplanes just dont mix.
Those of you who say, well they managed septemer 11th with just knives. i'd like to point out this was a first and therefore the flight crews probably thought, "He only wants some ransom, we'll just do as he says and no one will get hurt". Well no flight crew is gonna be stupid enough to think that again. They just wont give the terrorists access to the flight deck (or cockpit).
Make the cockpit/flight decks secure and even a ****er with a gun isnt gonna crash that plane. (course you'd need to secure all the vital electronics and stuff as well then)
In short, im all for air marshalls with tasers or even knock out darts (they maybe slow acting but however long it takes ur terrorist will be out in what? 10-15mins.) That way as well if the highly trained marshall (god forbid) misses at least he'll only stick the poor sod to sleep. (tho a lot can happen in 10-15mins)
Anyways my rant over 0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
They don't fly to the statesOriginally posted by Daddy Dinkie
I'm concerned about who is going to pay for this? Airlines are gonna be losing an extra seat or two for the air marshalls and they're gonna have to get paid as well. Where's the money coming from? The passengers most likely, that's gonna have serious impact on the price of a Ryan Air flight!
average occupancy on a plane is about 70% anyway, so plenty of space.
http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/topstories/2291895?view=EircomnetFlying into the face of danger
From:ireland.com
Saturday, 3rd January, 2004
The use of armed guards aboard aircraft is being dubbed by critics as the 'Hollywood response' to a security threat better tackled on the ground, writes Gerry Byrne
Aviation security experts could be forgiven for feeling there is something ironic in the recent announcements by the US Federal Government that, whenever a terrorist threat is forecast, it wants armed guards on flights from Europe, including Ireland. For years, while European airports and airlines applied layer after layer of extra security in the wake of a wave of destructive Palestinian attacks, the penny-pinching US aviation sector successfully campaigned to reduce, not increase, security at US airports.
America was, paradoxically, the one country which should have had tougher, not weaker, security because, prior to 9/11, it had suffered 234 recorded hijackings. One US airline, Eastern, accounted for 47 hijacks or 20 per cent of that total. All of Western Europe, on the other hand, accounted for just 57 hijacks during the same period.
September 11th, 2001 was not an isolated occurrence either. There had been a hijack attempt less than two months earlier at New York's JFK Airport, within sight of the Twin Towers, when a man armed with a pistol entered a National Airlines Boeing 757 while it was boarding. He was persuaded to surrender peacefully but the event demonstrated glaring loopholes in US airport security. Amazingly, there was no attempt to beef up precautions in the wake of such a breach of security.
Equally amazing was the fact that some of the 9-11 hijackers had earlier aroused FBI suspicions but their reports were not followed up by senior officials. The hijackers seized four jetliners and succeeded in crashing three of them into both Twin Towers and the Pentagon in Washington, causing enormous loss of life. A fourth crashed in rural Pennsylvania with the loss of all aboard.
The American response, the formation of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), has not had a happy history, as its first months were blighted by corporate mushrooming. Its first director, John Magaw, concentrated on developing an alternative law-enforcement agency, complete with armed officers, instead of simply ensuring adequate security measures were in place at US airports. A year after 9-11, for example, private security companies, which paid workers less than McDonald's, were still employed at most US airports, instead of supposedly more highly trained and better motivated Federal employees.
While the TSA was being developed, complete with snazzy logos and designer uniforms, there were few bomb-detection machines at work in the US; for the past three years, for example, Dublin, a relative backwater in aviation terms, has boasted far more advanced bomb-detection machinery than most major US cities. Yet Magaw missed deadline after deadline for the installation of bomb-detection equipment as his officials squabbled with airport companies and failed to agree on a common specification for the equipment. After Magaw was fired the picture slowly improved but more than $6 billion had been spent with little to show for it.
But all is still not well in US security. Posing as terrorists with concealed weapons, government agents have repeatedly probed airport defences and found them wanting. And recent events, when flights from France, Britain and Mexico have been met by jet fighters with armed missiles, or even turned back, may have been generated as much by confusion as by accurate intelligence on genuine terrorists. In the case of six recent Air France flights which were either cancelled or turned back, the French authorities reacted by accusing the Americans of incompetence and wrongly translating Arabic names. Shortly before Christmas, two airline pilots from Trinidad and Tobago, flying for the West Indies airline BWIA, were arrested by the FBI when their names appeared on a TSA "no-fly" list. It emerged the men were listed in error and they were released with apologies.
Meanwhile, other groups have been writing their own air-security policies, none less so than America's trigger-happy pilots, a majority of whom successfully campaigned to repeal legislation banning guns from cockpits. Federal law once required pilots to be armed when carrying US mail, a throwback to the days of Wells Fargo. Indeed, one pistol-packing pilot, in the 1950s, foiled an attempted hijacking by shooting the teenage would-be hijacker dead. But, although they have succeeded in getting Congressional approval to carry weapons again, pilots have still not secured agreement with the authorities on how and when those guns are to be used.
In the face of such dithering, it was inevitable that what one wit called the Hollywood solution would emerge. Just as a film director with a sagging plot introduces the obligatory gunfight or car chase to liven things up, so the Americans have returned to the notion of having armed marshals in the passenger cabin.
Armed marshals were randomly introduced to US aircraft in the wake of a rash of hijacks by Cubans seeking free passage to Havana in the late 1950s, but their numbers had faded to almost negligible proportions by 2000. Now they are back but it's a typically frontier solution to a problem others say could be better tackled on the ground, before the aircraft takes off, by properly screening passengers.
American pilots differ markedly with their European colleagues, who say the pilot's job in a hijack emergency is to keep the cockpit door locked and land the plane as quickly as possible. As 9-11 showed, today's determined hijackers want to get the controls and once they do everyone is doomed anyhow. The cockpit doors of most airliners, once (pre-9-11) weaker than the average wardrobe, are now extremely tough affairs that cannot be easily broken down, giving pilots valuable breathing space as they try to land the aircraft. Mid-air shootouts, European pilots say, either by themselves or armed marshals, can only distract them from that vital mission.
There is some precedent in their favour. Although air marshals have successfully defeated hijackers, especially the highly trained Israelis aboard El Al jetliners, in too many cases pilots have ended up crashing their aircraft as noise, panic and fear erupts around them.
Even the stress of having a hijacker on board is unnerving enough to cause fatal pilot error. That's probably what happened aboard an Air Vietnam Boeing 727 in September 1974 when the pilot of a hijacked aircraft, attempting to land, overshot the runway and crashed. All 75 aboard died. In 1977, a hijacked Malaysian 737 unexpectedly stalled and crashed into a swamp, killing all 100 aboard and leading to the suspicion that the distracted pilots were unaware they were running out of fuel. In 1996 an Ethiopian airlines Boeing 767 crashed in the sea off Grand Comore in the Indian Ocean, killing 125 when it too ran out of fuel during a hijack.
As if landing an aircraft is not stressful enough, there's even more pressure on pilots when violence does erupt. In October 1990, 82 died when a hijacked Xiamen Airlines' Boeing 737 crash-landed and collided with two other airliners at Guangzhou-Baiyun Airport in China. The pilot had been attempting a normal landing but the hijackers tried to prevent it by struggling with the crew in the cockpit when they realised they were not landing at either Hong Kong or Beijing as they had ordered.
And it's not always much better when air marshals intervene. Mayhem erupted during a 1986 hijacking of an Iraqi Airways Boeing 737 when air marshals tried to prevent hijackers gaining the cockpit. Grenades were thrown by the hijackers and the aircraft crashed on landing at Arar in Saudi Arabia, killing 63 of the 106 aboard.
Cont./...0 -
Advertisement