If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Armed sky-marshals on planes?
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Curious to know what people's views are on the possibility of airlines having undercover armed "sky-marshals" on flights in order to prevent terrorism.
I really can't decide. In some ways I think I'd feel safter knowing that there were people trained to deal with such a situation if it arose. You would not expect to go into a club or even a large store without trained security guards close by.
However, the possibility of their weapons falling into the wrong hands is a real and rather siniser one that I think would worry me just as much as not having them at all.
I think my solution would be to have people on board who are trained in dealing with hijackings, but possibly not to have them carrying guns. Would this do any good though?
What do you all think?
I really can't decide. In some ways I think I'd feel safter knowing that there were people trained to deal with such a situation if it arose. You would not expect to go into a club or even a large store without trained security guards close by.
However, the possibility of their weapons falling into the wrong hands is a real and rather siniser one that I think would worry me just as much as not having them at all.
I think my solution would be to have people on board who are trained in dealing with hijackings, but possibly not to have them carrying guns. Would this do any good though?
What do you all think?
0
Comments
What I think should happen thou is the flight deck doors should be strengthened, and completely sealed off during flight from the rest of the aircraft (Which some airlines have started to do). Tecknotart, I agree with you maybe having trained people onboard, but I would not like them to be armed... although perhaps maybe they could have stun guns, again these could fall into the wrong hands thou
Its a sad thing... I remeber the days when enthusiasts like myself could go up and look inside the flight deck, not a bloody chance no thou
It should be completely banned on planes, it is always implicated in reports of air rage, so why sell it?
because its cheap and the airlines make money. but then again i dont agree with it - i dont drink much alchahol - esp not when i need to concentrate ie: plane flight!
ive seen many people get drunk on planes but the stewards and sterwardesses just keep bringing more drinks. maybe they get a commision?
I seem to recall many people made suggestions along these lines in the wake of September 11th. British Airways came back with the response that although the pilots might then be safe, those on the other side of the doors wouldn't be... and if terrorists were to start killing hostages, the doors would be opened pretty quickly anyway. Add to that the fact that the plane could be brought down anyway by a few well-placed gunshots from the main cabin, and you see why some remain sceptical about the efficacy of simply shutting and armouring the stable door.
Security guys with Guns - Cant come too soon.
I hear recently that a gunshot punture in an aircraft wouldnt depressurise the aircraft that quickly and wouldnt cause too much of a problem.
Im not sure , i dont know much about it but ill do some research.
If the projectile didnt hit a window, yes the decompression wouldnt be that bad, but if a window (esp. on the flight deck) was destroyed the results can be pretty bad - I'm no airline pilot (Yet!) but any decompressions requires the captain to put the aircraft into a step decent to equalise the pressure (I think)
The effects of firearm discharge in a pressurized commercial aircraft is dependent on the size of hole caused by the bullet. If the hole is clean and of the size of your finger, it would not caused a rapid depressurization.
Let me discuss this scenario in the context of a Boeing 777. (Other pressurized aircraft are almost similar). Inside this aircraft, there are already two existing 'holes' for regulating the cabin pressurization. They are called the outflow valves, one located in the front and the other is at the aft belly. Their function is to modulate and maintain a desired cabin pressure of around 8.5 psi (pounds per square inch), and it varies with the aircraft altitude. This operation is performed automatically.
It is never possible to fully seal the aircraft doors and hence there are very minute spaces where some pressurized air may already be leaking out. They are hardly noticeable. At the same time, the interior of the airplane is always being pressurized and recharged by a constant flow of pneumatic or bleed air from the engines.
If a gunshot creates a clean hole through the skin, it is not going to be disastrous because air will just whistle out of the hole. The outflow valves will automatically response to this sudden loss of air by closing the valves a little to compensate for the air leak.
My estimate is that it would probably take quite sometime to fully depressurize the aircraft cabin. It only takes about less than 5 minutes to carry out an emergency descent from, say 35,000 to 10,000 feet assuming the aircraft is descending at about 5000 feet per minute.
If the size of the hole of the firearm discharge is big then it may depressurize quite rapidly. Think of the aircraft cabin as if it is a balloon. The bigger the hole, the faster the air would leak out. The hole with a size of a finger will not have any major or significant effect on a big commercial aircraft.
What is more worrying is that, a gun shot hitting the electrical cables, hydraulic lines or control cables may cause some headaches, but not altogether critical because the aircraft has many backup systems. Even that, it is quite remote because such vital cables or lines are generally well protected and are securely located away from possible damage.
In a real situation some years back, a Boeing 737 in Hawaii had the front roof section of the First Class cabin ripped off due to a depressurization caused by some undetected cracks in the airframe at 24,000 feet. There was only one fatality, apparently sucked out of the cabin due to the rapid depressurization but the aircraft landed safely.
I had always thought another efficient way of dealing with hijackers would be filling the cabin with sleeping gas (the cockpit would obviously have to be airtight and insulated from the cabin). But after seeing the effects of the Russian hostage rescue last month I'm not sure gas is such a good idea.
Low-velocity rounds sound good. However, aren't soft-nosers usually used for 'enhanced splatter effect' a la dum-dums?
It depends, the Russians have a habit of going over the top, and they did use sleeping gas designed for the battle field and not an enclosed space. Simple aneasthetic would do the job.
As for depressurisation, as a bullet travels through an object, it spins. If you shot though a person, the exit hole would be bigger than the entry hole.
The samne thing would happen, and would subscequently weaken the superstructure and cause the hole to grow in size.
Didn't even bother thinking that tasers would probably be more effective???
Dar mabbee tazer nott allways work. Bullet always work. Bullet not penetrate hull of aircraft and not mess up sensitive electronics that keep plane in air. u think u smart man but me thinks not.
Me thinks you even dumber creature. Me know that bullets leave a larger exit wound that entry wound, leaving weak superstructure. Me knows that a bullet could go through into flight deck control panel. Me knows bullet could leave plane and blow off wing rudder. Or engine. Or both.
Tasers would be the best situation, something to stun people but not kill them. After all, we could then find out who they were working for afterwards.
There should be security staff on planes, not for the threat of terrorism but to prevent air rage. Oh, and alcohol is free on commercial long-haul flights. Its not the alcohols problem, is the regulation- people shouldnt be allowed to board planes drunk, or get drunk on board. And any crew that allow it should be dismissed.
So I think having very well trained marksmen on planes makes sense.
Me thinks you not read other posts this issue. Bullet hits tissue bullet losses velocity as pass through flesh and bone bullet not always make bigger exit whole than entry. You not address Electro magnetic pulse of tazor and what it does to plane. You have your own solution without even contemplating the facts. I am glad your not king of the world and can make everything safe for the rest of us poor peons.