Milemaster From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 1063 posts, RR: 2 Posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2098 times:
*sigh* ...I'm just not at all surprised.
Dallas-bound flight escorted to Houston airport by F-16s
HOUSTON - A Dallas-bound American Airlines flight was escorted Wednesday afternoon by F-16 fighter jets to Bush Intercontinental Airport after a disturbance was reported on board.
"We seem to have some sort of situation," Houston Airport System spokesman Ernie DeSoto said around 1:30 p.m. CDT. "It is on the ground. It is surrounded. I really don't have many details at this moment."
The American Airlines jet was moved to a remote section of Bush Intercontinental Airport.
DeSoto said U.S. air marshals were aboard the flight, which reportedly was headed to Nashville with an intermediate stop at Dallas-Fort Worth International airport.
In Austin, Texas Land Commissioner David Dewhurst told TXCN the captain's decision to turn the plane around was based on the recommendation of a flight attendant.
"The behavior, the general behavior of one of the passengers made one of the flight attendants very, very nervous," Mr. Dewhurst said. "The captain made the decision in light of the alert that we're under to divert the plane and go back to Houston."
KHOU-TV reported a folding knife was found aboard the Fokker F100 jet and that two people were taken in for questioning.
Flydeltasjets From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 210 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1899 times:
I think you're on to something. As a matter of fact, we shouldn't let air marshalls on board anymore, because we wouldn't want to "provide weapons" for the hijackers. Come to think of it, we shouldn't arm the police anymore, because someone might get their guns.
I agree with you. It's a lot better to let the f-16 behind me shoot us down if my cockpit is breached than to give me one last chance to save us. After all, we couldn't possibly be trained to use guns, we're only pilots. You can't train us to do anything...
I'll remember the attitude of many on this board the next time I have an engine fire. My job is to fly the airplane. I'm not a fireman. I can't be distracted from my flying duties for a silly thing like putting out a fire. I suggest we take all fire bottles out of the engines immediately. After all, they could fall into the wrong hands.
Exnonrev From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 621 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1705 times:
The diversion was the result of two seperate incidents aboard the flight.
The first was the comb, which was an old metal one spotted by pax some distance away and mistaken for a knife.
The second involved another unrelated pax who was changing seats frequently and refused to return to his original seat as requested by a F/A.
The a/c was about 20 min out of IAH and was escorted back by TXANG F-16s from EFD. Upon landing the a/c stopped at the end of RWY 26, where it was boarded by HPD and FBI. The two pax involved were taken off the a/c without incident. The a/c then continued back to Terminal A where the pax were allowed to leave.
The a/c was then towed to the southwest corner of IAH near the GA area and thouroughly searched for any explosives etc.
Ouboy79 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 4567 posts, RR: 23
Reply 9, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1681 times:
I think the whole point of the folks that argue against guns in the cockpit is this...
With added security, there isn't any reason why the flight deck crew should open the cockpit door in flight and it should be impossible for someone to be able to kick the door down. Reinforcing the cockpit door and making it an impenetrable object will eliminate ANY need for the flight deck crew to be armed. Regardless if the F/As and pax are being tortured in the back -- the crew has no reason to leave the flight deck until the plane is on the ground and situation neutralized.
>>I'll remember the attitude of many on this board the next time I have an engine fire. My job is to fly the airplane. I'm not a fireman. I can't be distracted from my flying duties for a silly thing like putting out a fire. I suggest we take all fire bottles out of the engines immediately. After all, they could fall into the wrong hands.<<
That is an irrelevant and immature statement. You get paid the big bucks to fly the plane and do all you can from the flight deck -- not to leave the flight deck to play John Wayne with terrorists in the cabin. The flight decks need to be made to where no one can get in from kicking, ramming, or bombing the door -- doing this will eliminate this discussion of arming pilots since it would no longer be needed.
AlaskaMVP From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 150 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1657 times:
The flight deck can never be made perfectly defensible. Did you know it actually can be opened with a key? How certain are you a copy of that key will never be smuggled to a hijacker? I'm not even confident it can be made safe against explosives, and we know that they can be smuggled aboard a plane. Lastly, pilots have bladders, so I'm not sure that terrorists can't breach the cockpit during a bathroom break? I think that cart in the hallway provides some level of security but I'm betting it's not perfect.
Effective security needs to be in layers. No airport security is going to detect every knife, gun, or explosive device smuggled into an airplane. If I was a terrorist I would actually get one of the cabin cleaning crew to store my weapons under my seat before the flight. I would either wait for the captain to take a leak, or use a shoe bomb to blow the hinges off the door, assuming I couldn't get a copy of the key from a mole in the airline sympathetic to my "cause". With enough comrades and weaponry I think we can breach the cockpit while holding off angry passengers (we would probably choose one of the many flights without air-marshals, or kill them first).
The last layer of protection is the cockpit. Putting guns in the hands of the pilots means that if a terrorist manages to breach all the aforementioned security barriers, they still have a high likelihood of failure. This probably will help ensure they won't try.
If I can't trust the pilots to carry guns in the cockpit (safe from being "gotten a hold of" by hijackers) and properly use them when necessary, then how can I trust them to fly a plane where they can kill me and every other passenger with a twist of their wrist?
Flydeltasjets From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 210 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (11 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1626 times:
Isn't an inpenatrable door called a wall? Doesn't every door have to be penetrable somehow? I agree that we should make the doors as strong as possible, but a door has not been invented yet which cannot be opened. If you can come up with one, I'll be all for it. In the meantime, we should have one extra layer of safety, a surprise waiting on the other side of it should it be breached.
Speaking of immature statements, who ever said we intended to come out of the cockpit to play "John Wayne?" Your statement, while immature and argumentative, also displayed a stunning lack of knowledge of the guns proposal. No one has ever suggested we come out of the cockpit to fight. That is the marshall's job (I hope we get thousands of them). However, on the outside chance the bad guys get past the first lines of defense (security, marshalls, f/a's pax, cockpit door, etc.) I would certainly like to be able to defend myself. Or would you prefer getting shot down if terrorists get into the cockpit? That's what the choice will be if they get in...They die, or we all do. Why shouldn't we do everything in our power to increase our chances in the event we ever have another fight to the death in a cockpit?