Cricri From France, joined Oct 1999, 581 posts, RR: 6 Posted (16 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1480 times:
Hummm... I have to admit Koopas hit a point with his topic about f/as and weapons. The point he wanted you to debate is f/a's and passengers security on board during hijacking and not to transform the plane in a shooting-range. Try not to be as sacarstic as you were (even if I can understand your reaction), it was just an idea he had and I do not only find good ideas and topics on the forum.
It could be interesting to develop it : how could it be possible to insure the security on board.
Of course, I disagree totally with the idea of having real guns/bullets on the plane ; basic rules of security would clearly be broken. I was reading the answers on Koopa's topic and thought one moment at guns with plastic or gummy bullets so no risk of injuring other people or ED.
Then, I thought at a teargas spray that could be used to calm down very agressiv people (my wife had his nose broken by a drunked passenger who was caught for the second time smoking in the toilets a year ago on a LAX-PPT and only the intervention of MPs travelling on board could clear the situation ; Other f/as and techn. crew couldn't calm the guy, tried to knocked him out but he was really too strong!) Would they have had teargas, I'm sure it would have helped. Just remember our topic "Air rage" a few days ago...
To finish, I think that when a plane is hijacked, the best way to stay alive is to remain quiet and cooperate with the hijackers, easy to say I know...
(By the way, what is the sqawk for an hijacking? I only know 7700 for distress).
Any other thoughts?
Cricri From France, joined Oct 1999, 581 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (16 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1407 times:
Hello Thaï, I think it is worth to try. Even if other passengers do breathe the gas, this would allows to handle the situation and to put the non desired person out of order. Regarding the allergy to the teargas, it is the same, better a sick person than 200 hundred people killed.
The f/as could have the gas stored in a secured and discret place.
I would like to have the point of view of all of you here on the forum, come on...
Mirage, thank you for the answer, do you know other special codes?
Pmk From United States of America, joined May 1999, 664 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (16 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1403 times:
The Idea of armed persons on American aircraft has been played with. In the 1980's an explosive bullet was developed to be used on aircraft, it was designed to explode when it hit something hard so it would not penetrate the fuscelage. When president Reagan was shot it was with one of these bullets (how they were acquired I do not know) the bullet that hit the president failed to explode, the one that hit his body guard James Brady (of the Brady Bill fame) did explode and made Mr. Brady a vegetable.
OPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (16 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1403 times:
Perhaps this is a more relevant topic...
Just my opinions, FWIW....
1/ The best way to twart a hijacking is to prevent it in the first place. Given the differences in security between the US/Europe and other places in the world, it appears to be working here.
2/ Should a hijacking occur, any attempt by the crew/pax to subdue the hijackers is almost always ill-advised. There's usually more than more hijacker, and they're usually well-armed. The problems associated with firearms onboard has already been discussed, and even tear gas usage wouldn't necessarily guarantee the hijackers would be sufficiently and immediately subdued enough to the degree that they couldn't/wouldn't fire upon someone or detonate something.
Everyone is much better off being patient, doing what they say, and hoping for the best. It aint't the movies...
BigO From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 109 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (16 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 1401 times:
While pepper spray or mace sounds like a good idea, you may want to reconsider. Any discharge of any kind of gas inside an airplane would also be inhaled by the person spraying and by the surrounding bystandards. Let's say one of those people has asthma and dies. After they settle the $50 million lawsuit plus all the $10 million lawsuits by the passengers who had the joy of being the bystandards that idea will be thrown out the window. If there is an unruly passenger, a flight attendant that is trained in hand to hand combat can subdue most of these drunken morons in no time. Cuff the bastard and hand him off to airport police when you land.
I still stand for the idea of having armed flight attendants. In case of a hijacking, they roam the airplane and they can keep an eye out for how many hijackers there are and where they are and how well they are armed. If an opportunity presents itself for a clean shot, they'll go for it. If not, they will cooperate and do their job. They may even want to ditch the weapon just in case these guys decide to search them, because if they happen to find a gun that flight attendant will probably be dead.
As far as "explosive bullets"? I don't know of these, although I'm not very familiar with guns and ammunition. But it is not something that sounds good. I think a low penetrating slug like a hollow point or even some of those safety slugs (somebody more knowledgable in this subject can help out) will be helpful in minimizing the decompression/stray bullet chances.
Pmk From United States of America, joined May 1999, 664 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (16 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1396 times:
I am a competitive target shooter, my younger brother is in the United States Army, my father is an NRA Expert Class competive target shooter. I can tell you that a hollow point bullet would not only penetrate the A/C hull but would make a LARGE hole! Plastic bullets do the same thing, it is ill advised to allow anyone on an aircraft to have a firearm. If any system must be used I recommend an electric stun gun like a Tazer, they are practically intollerable unless the person is 350+ pounds and is high on cocaine such as Rodney King. And frankly and forgive me for pointing out facts, most of the people who do the hijacking they are not that large!
1stClassFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (16 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1393 times:
i also think that hijacking prevntion should happen... why do we spend how many minutes going through security before boarding the plane just to have it hijacked??? it makes no sense, people shoud NOT be getting though airport security. and i know some airports have some passages that some people sneek though a get past security, it shouldn't be an issue to begin with, they should have thoes blocked off and locked doors, etc.! and just think how many people would sue the airline of teer gas was let loose in the aircrafts cabin, i know i would sue! thoes types of people should never have been admitted on to the plane! i think for drunk people and out of controll people, get one of those zapper thing and shockem and put 'em in cuffs, and chain them to there seats! because if they ahd the "stunn Gun" they wouldn't be endanger ANY of the other passengers, it is small, you could hide it, and it would directly to THAT person! and dont most airlines have cuffs in their emergency kit? but NO terroriest and hijackers shoud even make it though security!!!!!!!!!! but i think thoes shocker gun type things would be a good idea, then cuff the person to their seat and tell them to shut the hell up, and sit their ass down!