So all this talk about sky marshalls on planes what do you think? Personally I think it's a terrible idea. Having any guns on a plane is a bad idea. Most terroists won't be able to get guns onto the planes, but there's nothing to stop them from attacking a marshall and taking their gun. And what happens if the marshalls use the guns and miss, hitting the fuselage and losing the air pressure so that anyone not strapped in gets sucked out of the plane. Or worse if the bullet were to hit the wings and ignite the fuel. I know I would feel much safer flying on a plane that had no guns on it at all. They should just concentrate on keeping the terroists of the planes in the first place.
They use low velocity rubber bullets i think, doesnt matter if it hits you cause it wont kill you or break the plane.
Gas, that's what you need on planes.. knock out gas like in the films. Terrorist alert; punch the gas, knock out all the passengers, vent the gas.. cabin crew tie up the terrorists.
what if the terrorists have gas masks edit: they should just put everyone on the plane into cryogenic suspension for the flight, make the flights easier to bear too
I thought of that, it's harder to hide a gas mask than it is a knife or a gun. Plus they have to get the masks on quickly enough without someone seeing.
what if they had special nostril mounted gas masks that you put up your nose and are invisible from the outside
The bullets used are a special frangible type that will disintegrates on impact with hard surfaces, rather than blasting through anything. Nobody is stupid enough to take some FMJ rounds and start blasting 'em around the plane (apart from maybe the terrorists ). Therefore the chances of the bullet puncturing the fuselage is pretty slim. Secondly, jet fuel these days is relatively inert as a liquid and takes a bit more than a single bullet to cause it to explode. I do not believe that a single bullet, even if it did rupture the pressured cabin, would result in a sudden catastrophic depressurisation where the plane rips itself apart and half the passengers are blown out with the air (its not strictly accurate to say they are sucked out)....for depressurisation to be that violent it must be very sudden, and a bullet sized hole isn't going to cause that much damage. There was one case where a cockpit window on a BAC-111 was fitted incorrectly and at high altitutude it simply came off, with the result that the captain of the aircraft was blown by the air rushing out towards the window. He was grabbed by another crewmember and saved. Given that a window is much larger than a bullet hole, and a BAC-111 isn't that large compared to a jumbo, the depressurisation here was relatively rapid yet didn't actually result in the loss of a passenger/crew member or the destruction of the aircraft. The volume/size of the pressurised fuselage and the size of the opening that allows decompression is crucial in determining the rate at which depressurisation occurs (and as such how violent it is - very rapid depressurisation can be very destructive, but a slow depressurisation is less so and can occur with few very serious consequences - as in this case). A large opening with a small cabin volume will cause the quickest depressurisation, and therefore the greatest risk of structural damage occuring, people being sucked out, crew members and passengers passing out due to lack of oxygen before they can respond to the emergency - as happened to Payne Stewars learjet. Here depressurisation was rapid enough to incapacitate crew members before they could act to lower altitude, and the plane flew on by autopilot across the US for hundreds of miles with the crew unconscious or dead from lack of oxygen. But a single bullet hole in an airliners pressurised cabin is a smaller opening and as such the air cannot escape as quickly, and the greater volume of air within the cabin (the volume is greater, but the pressure remains the same so its not like just because there is more air it will rip the aircraft apart) means that it takes longer for depressurisation to occur as their is more air to leave the cabin. Depressurisation, if it was to occur in this way (with a single bullet hole through the fuselage of an airliner), should be relatively non-violent/destructive, and less likely to cause the things we associate with cabin depressurisation (which are mostly exaggerations in movies for entertainment value). As for attacking the air marshall to take his gun, how will they know who is the air marshall? They will be plain clothed, situated amongst the passengers with their weapon concealed. Nobody should be easily able to identify the marshall, so getting him to show himself will require some incident that will get his attention, but in a way that requires any would be gun-stealer to incapacitate the marshall before he can incapacitate the person intent on stealing the weapon. Not impossible, but not necessarily easy. If the idea of air marshalls being on planes was such a silly idea with so many extra associated risks, then surely the airlines insurance companies would be refusing to cover them if they have air marshalls on board, if indeed the risks and dangers some people are suggesting are genuine worries. EDIT: The US isn't deciding this policy in Britain btw (the US government recently issued recommendations that airliners flying in US airspace have air marshalls, and if the airlines don't follow this then where the risk is deemed to be significant then the US may refuse permission for certain flights). I am told by a fairly reliable source that within certain British police and armed forces units there was some recruitment for this job up to a year ago. They are recruited from the Police and Military and it has been advertised for the last year, giving full pay rates etc based on length of service with the respective force and also relevant experience and qualifications. Apparently there is going to about 180 air marshalls based within the UK (so not enough for every flight, but that will be determined based on risk i.e. a plane taking a British oil companie's representatives and advisors to Riyadh will be a more likely target for Al Qaeda than, say, an airliner taking French tourists back to Charles de Gaulle airport from Gatwick...). My 2p
Aircraft fuel is only kerocene, its slightly harder to light than diesel. Kna - even though its a good idea. You could have people who are a) allergic to it or b) refuse this or c) other medical grounds - age, heart condition etc What REALLY needs to be done is that the whole front of the plane needs to be sealed off from the passingers.
And don't forget the bottle of vodka to plant in the hand of the dead Chechen muslim extremist for photo opportunities. oh, wait, that's so last year... If you are wondering what the hell I'm on about look here.
Air Marshalls seem a fairly good idea to me. I can't say the events of 9/11 have put me off the idea of flying, nor would the idea of a presence of guns/whatever which are only there to make the filght safer. Bindi - sealing off the front of the plane is a good idea, but won't offer a gram of protection from some bloke with a bomb in his shoe, or hidden in his beard
September 11th wouldnt have happened if there were trained anti-terrorist marksmen onboard with concealed weapons. Israel has had sky marshals for years and theyve prevented several hijackings, yet caused none. In my oppinion the argument is frivilous - Sky marshals = Good. Fact and theory.
True, but itll stop them from taking over the plane and flying into buildings. I didnt realise airmarshals are plain clothed though, itll probably work, but you may get incidents of simple airrage or stupid marshals that take little incidents as acts of "terrorism" 9/11 would have been prevented if the US security forces actually arrested people rather than simply following them. They knew for months about possible terrorists but because nothing like that had ever happened before they were ignorant towards it.
Air Marshalls can only be a good thing, they would be highly trained and properly equiped so that the things mentioned in previous posts just wouldn't happen. Even if you are against them what would you prefer, a highly trained professional relying on years of training having a last attempt of saving the plane and everybody on board (after all peaceful routes have failed), or being the passenger in the next 747 used in the direct role with nobody to even try saving your ass? As for the gas, has been tried before, Moscow theater blunder. Though I'm sure this could be worked on and a specially designed system may be more effective. I thought for a long time that the totally sealed off cabin would be a good idea, although there are still allot of 'but this wont stop this that or the other' atleast it removes one problem.
It might prevent a hijacking if the hijackers wanted to control the plane, keep everybody alive and use them as hostages to put pressure on a government or something. But if you've got a bunch of hijackers who are hell bent on killing everyone anyway, including themselves, then I doubt a few rubber bullets are going to deter them. They'd figure a way to subdue the air marshals for a few moments, because that's all it would take. Or they'd get on an inconspicuous domestic flight that is unlikely to have any air marshals on it. Either that or they'd just skip the hijacking and blow themselves up. I don't see it as a particularly good solution to the problem, I think airport screening and intelligence gathering are better approaches.
I wouldn't rule out the use of all gas just because of one cockup. If I remember correctly, the tactics worked fine until the Russian government refused to tell doctors anything about the gas. That said, I don't know if I'd want to be on the receiving end. Edit: for some reason the second part of what you said didn't register in my brain until after I'd posted Ahh well, not a total waste of time.
Also, it's horses for courses.. we're comparing gassing a huge theatre with 750 people in it at short notice, to a plane. If the US Military/Whoever was tasked with designing a knockout gas that could safely subdue the entire passenger section of a standard sized jumbo jet, I'm sure they could come up with something.
If people are that hell bent on killing themselves for what they believe in then there really isn't much you can do, but atleast you can try... As for the gas, the Moscow theatre was a cock-up because of the shape of the target building (normal sloping forward theatre room) and the delivery system (air vents). The result was that some areas were much higher concentrated than others and with the type of gas used proved fatal, the fact that the goverment then didn't tell doctors what gas was used just sealed their fate. A specially designed system and a safer gas would probably produce a better result, but then what if somebody is allergic or has some medical problem? And to be honest most terrorists should be sensible enough to take gas masks, especially if they know a gas system is in place.
I think what is forcing such measures it that terrorists no longer want to detour planes, but (supposedly) bring them down altogether. Originally my concern was that guns on planes would 'force' terrorists to use theirs, who would obviously not have as good an aim as the Marshall's, potentially causing hull decompression which can lead to the plane ripping apart. This was when planes were not falling out of the sky. If the Sky Marshall's could even give them half the chance to emergency land (or even crash) the plane, wouldn't it be worth it? Even if a fire-fight was to erupt and the plane come apart, wouldn't even that be better than another 9/11?
Ummm, a quick thought... These "Sky Marshals" they're in street clothes, right? So you don't know they're there... And these "Sky Marshals" are on random flights? So you can't guarantee there will be one on your particular flight... I ask this... Are they really there for protection? Or to give a sense of protection? The way I see the random flights bit is like this... There's a magic trick where the magician holds up five cards, tells you to remember one... shuffles the cards, holds them back up and says "I'll bet you $5 your card is gone"... Amazingly, it IS gone! Little does the spectator know that ALL of the previous 5 cards have been replaced... Your air marshal hasn't just moved, he's dissapeared... Sure there's the chance that one of these supposed air marshals could save a flight, but seeing as how rare hijackings are, how likely is it that they'll even have the chance? So if these marshals are already on only a few flights, and hijackings are so rare... what are the actual odds that anyone will ever see one? At that rate it would be easy (and cheap!) to give the public a sense of protection...
Very good point Ubermich, lets indulge your point shal we? Lets say that there are at any one time 30 active air marshalls, and theres in the range of lets say, 300 (just for arguement's sake) planes in the sky that could possability hold one of these air marshalls. Thats a 1 in 10 chance of getting an air marshall on your flight. And even then, lets say only 5 of them are ever air born, that lowers your odd's even more, untill the amount of actual people that are there to "protect" you, dwindles to allmost nothing, so yeah, they are there for a "sense" of protection, not to actualy protect you.
