Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Tasers On Korean Air - Good Or Bad?  
User currently offlineTWISTEDWHISPER From Sweden, joined Aug 2003, 711 posts, RR: 2
Posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 3929 times:

US authorities has granted Korean Air to equip specially trained cabin crew with tasers, or electric-shock-gun. Part of the reason for this is that the tasers hopefully will deter potential terrorists...

What's you opinion on this? I for one think it's a great idea, I prefer tasers rather than guns, specially on a plane.

http://www.faa.com
http://www.taser.com


Read between the lines.
6 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineNedguy From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2004, 13 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3803 times:

I’m just not sure about this.

I have to believe that everybody has thought it through carefully before giving the go-ahead, but my worries are the same as they were in Nov 2001 when United suggested they might equip their crews with Tasers.

I emailed the press office at Boeing (I'm a travel journalist) and asked if the company had done any research on what the effects of a 150,000-volt pulse (or whatever it is. Can’t remember now) might be on the avionics in a digital cockpit if one of those things was accidently discharged in a struggle for control of the flight deck.

They said that would be a good question for United!


User currently offlineLH423 From Canada, joined Jul 1999, 6501 posts, RR: 54
Reply 2, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3789 times:

Yes, but a bullet through a door or cockpit window at 35,000 ft could have just as, if not more, catastrophic results.

LH423



« On ne voit bien qu'avec le cœur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux » Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
User currently offlineOB1504 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 3350 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3784 times:

Yes, but a bullet through a door or cockpit window at 35,000 ft could have just as, if not more, catastrophic results.

Would you rather have a small bullet hole in a window resulting in an emergency descent (or a good place to throw the terrorist out of), which would be necessary anyway if someone had just hijacked the airplane, or have the windows intact but all of the instruments fried?

Good day!  Smile/happy/getting dizzy


User currently offlineLH423 From Canada, joined Jul 1999, 6501 posts, RR: 54
Reply 4, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3779 times:

If I have a competent crew, then the latter.

But apparently you haven't seen what little holes can do at that altitude and speed.

LH423



« On ne voit bien qu'avec le cœur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux » Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
User currently offlineBENNETT123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7605 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3728 times:


I seem to remember a BAC 111 in the Philipines which twice landed safely after a grenade exploded on board.

Clearly, a bullet hole is survivable. Equally fried electrics are not ideal, but should be survivable.

The main criteria is presumably which is most accurate.

I tend to prefer Taser because it is less lethal. The fact is that based on past history, most hijackings end with little or no loss of life. 9/11 was NOT the norm.


User currently offlineTWISTEDWHISPER From Sweden, joined Aug 2003, 711 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (9 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3727 times:

Would you rather have a small bullet hole in a window resulting in an emergency descent

That's childish, man... A hole in the window leads to rapid cabin pressure fall, and in worst case scenarios that could mean that part of the roof flies of... and take the tail with it... and then my friend, your emergency descent turns in to an aggressive, close to vertical, and uncontrolled dive... a descent rate of 15 000 ft per minute is not an emergency descent... it's a "crash and burn"...



Read between the lines.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Independence Air: Good Or Bad? posted Thu Aug 26 2004 06:12:21 by Flyibaby
No-Fly List Does Good On Korean Air Diversion posted Thu Jun 9 2005 09:49:27 by NYCFlyer
Air Mauritius-good Or Bad? posted Sat Oct 7 2000 00:12:42 by Peq
How Is British Midland/ SWA Good Or Bad To Fly On? posted Mon Mar 20 2000 22:02:14 by VirginA340
Updated Biz Seats On Korean Air A330-300s posted Tue Aug 8 2006 01:34:39 by DeltaGator
Booking Alitalia For Fall - Good Or Bad Idea? posted Tue Mar 14 2006 19:11:34 by Crazyro
Planes With Good Or Bad Residual Values posted Fri Jan 27 2006 20:06:14 by JAM747
Jet Blue, Good Or Bad For The Larger Carriers? posted Tue Jan 3 2006 19:21:11 by Worldliner
Good Or Bad Time For Airplane Manufacturers? posted Sat Nov 26 2005 01:38:44 by TheSonntag
Is This A Good Or Bad Idea? posted Fri Nov 11 2005 20:56:22 by SQNo1