#2 in line at a high density airport...
- Thread starter derg
- Start date
BrettInLJ
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Well, this is what happened, the captain told the FO to ask the tower for a position to sit so they could call flight control.
They called flight control and asked about the presence of a LEO on the aircraft of which there was and provided information about where he was seated.
The captain then called back to the flight attendant and asked if the LEO was seated in that particular seat and confirmed.
[/ QUOTE ]
Is "flight control" the same thing as dispatch?
Well, this is what happened, the captain told the FO to ask the tower for a position to sit so they could call flight control.
They called flight control and asked about the presence of a LEO on the aircraft of which there was and provided information about where he was seated.
The captain then called back to the flight attendant and asked if the LEO was seated in that particular seat and confirmed.
[/ QUOTE ]
Is "flight control" the same thing as dispatch?
ananoman
New Member
[ QUOTE ]
Well I didn't mean to infer that a bullet hole would cause the plane to implode from within.
I did think that a bullet hole could cause structual failure leading to a larger hole being created. But as Bobbduck pointed out prolly not a reality.
But if I bullet were fired inside the cabin and miss it's mark and maybe hit a window it would lead to decompressation of the plane things being sucked out of the plane.
Panic,fear and an emergency situation.
To all concerned I think a gun shouldn't be carried on a plane.
But hey what do I know?
[/ QUOTE ] If a window blows out of a large aircraft (unlikely as they are multiple layers of plastic) then the cabin may not even lose pressurization. It depends on how big the airplane is. A smaller RJ may have a problem. On a 737 it may only cause the outflow valves to close. It would scare the crap out of whoever was sitting next to it, but unless they were not belted in would probably not be that big of a deal.
You also have to remember that even a retarded LEO is not going to be playing show and tell with their weapon, so it is very unlikely that there will be an accidental discharge in the cabin. If any shooting occurs, it would be for a good reason. A few holes here and there and some dead passengers is better than losing the entire aircraft. I find the DOT's stance on the Federal Flight Deck Officer program rather humerous. They have made it almost impossible for any pilots to complete the program. For those who do, they make them carry their guns in lock boxes through the terminal, until they get on the plane. There have already been several instances where pilots have lost their guns going through security or otherwise had them stolen. The DOT says that it is dangerous for pilots to have guns, but their solution is to shoot down the aircraft if it is hijacked.
Well I didn't mean to infer that a bullet hole would cause the plane to implode from within.
I did think that a bullet hole could cause structual failure leading to a larger hole being created. But as Bobbduck pointed out prolly not a reality.
But if I bullet were fired inside the cabin and miss it's mark and maybe hit a window it would lead to decompressation of the plane things being sucked out of the plane.
Panic,fear and an emergency situation.
To all concerned I think a gun shouldn't be carried on a plane.
But hey what do I know?
[/ QUOTE ] If a window blows out of a large aircraft (unlikely as they are multiple layers of plastic) then the cabin may not even lose pressurization. It depends on how big the airplane is. A smaller RJ may have a problem. On a 737 it may only cause the outflow valves to close. It would scare the crap out of whoever was sitting next to it, but unless they were not belted in would probably not be that big of a deal.
You also have to remember that even a retarded LEO is not going to be playing show and tell with their weapon, so it is very unlikely that there will be an accidental discharge in the cabin. If any shooting occurs, it would be for a good reason. A few holes here and there and some dead passengers is better than losing the entire aircraft. I find the DOT's stance on the Federal Flight Deck Officer program rather humerous. They have made it almost impossible for any pilots to complete the program. For those who do, they make them carry their guns in lock boxes through the terminal, until they get on the plane. There have already been several instances where pilots have lost their guns going through security or otherwise had them stolen. The DOT says that it is dangerous for pilots to have guns, but their solution is to shoot down the aircraft if it is hijacked.
griffithvoice
New Member
I hadn't seen the mythbuster episode but I have been led to belive that explosive decompresion would not occur. Without going into specifics, in Australia our Air marshals carry ammunition which is task specific and is of a particular type that reduces the risk to very close to nil.
Can't speak for other LEO's from other departhements but APS arm their guys with decompression in mind.
Can't speak for other LEO's from other departhements but APS arm their guys with decompression in mind.
TheGirlinPurple
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Well I didn't mean to infer that a bullet hole would cause the plane to implode from within.
I did think that a bullet hole could cause structual failure leading to a larger hole being created. But as Bobbduck pointed out prolly not a reality.
But if I bullet were fired inside the cabin and miss it's mark and maybe hit a window it would lead to decompressation of the plane things being sucked out of the plane.
Panic,fear and an emergency situation.
To all concerned I think a gun shouldn't be carried on a plane.
But hey what do I know?
-Matthew
[/ QUOTE ]
Mathew again as was stated that would not happen. Just because a bullet goes through a window of an aircraft does not mean it will blow out. The PSI is not great enough to do that. Also it is not like the windows are glass and will shatter. The windows in the cabin are mostly plexiglass and have alot of reinforcement holding them in. So basicly the person next to the hole will probably move because of loud noise, but it would take more than a bullet hole(what 1/2"?) to cause a great big hole that will suck things out. Remeber Hollywood loves to go to extremes and will make stuff up for entertainment.
Well I didn't mean to infer that a bullet hole would cause the plane to implode from within.
I did think that a bullet hole could cause structual failure leading to a larger hole being created. But as Bobbduck pointed out prolly not a reality.
But if I bullet were fired inside the cabin and miss it's mark and maybe hit a window it would lead to decompressation of the plane things being sucked out of the plane.
Panic,fear and an emergency situation.
To all concerned I think a gun shouldn't be carried on a plane.
But hey what do I know?
-Matthew
[/ QUOTE ]
Mathew again as was stated that would not happen. Just because a bullet goes through a window of an aircraft does not mean it will blow out. The PSI is not great enough to do that. Also it is not like the windows are glass and will shatter. The windows in the cabin are mostly plexiglass and have alot of reinforcement holding them in. So basicly the person next to the hole will probably move because of loud noise, but it would take more than a bullet hole(what 1/2"?) to cause a great big hole that will suck things out. Remeber Hollywood loves to go to extremes and will make stuff up for entertainment.
Mr_Creepy
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Remember Hollywood loves to go to extremes and will make stuff up for entertainment.
[/ QUOTE ]
I remember that old Airport movie where the 747 sinks in 100' of water, but everyone is ok inside - "Don't worry, it's pressurized!"
Oh My Ghandi every real pilot myst have hurt themselves laughing when they said that
Remember Hollywood loves to go to extremes and will make stuff up for entertainment.
[/ QUOTE ]
I remember that old Airport movie where the 747 sinks in 100' of water, but everyone is ok inside - "Don't worry, it's pressurized!"
Oh My Ghandi every real pilot myst have hurt themselves laughing when they said that
ananoman
New Member
[ QUOTE ]
Without going into specifics, in Australia our Air marshals carry ammunition which is task specific and is of a particular type that reduces the risk to very close to nil.
[/ QUOTE ] That would probably be the Glaser Safety Slug. It is currently being produced by Cor-bon. Mag-Safe also makes a similar round.
Instead of the traditional lead core covered with a copper jacket, the glasers use a copper cup filled with very small lead shot. If the bullet hits anything, it will break apart. This reduces the chance of overpenetration and ricochet. They do make a mess our of people though.
Without going into specifics, in Australia our Air marshals carry ammunition which is task specific and is of a particular type that reduces the risk to very close to nil.
[/ QUOTE ] That would probably be the Glaser Safety Slug. It is currently being produced by Cor-bon. Mag-Safe also makes a similar round.
Instead of the traditional lead core covered with a copper jacket, the glasers use a copper cup filled with very small lead shot. If the bullet hits anything, it will break apart. This reduces the chance of overpenetration and ricochet. They do make a mess our of people though.
Theotokos
New Member
Here's what I do:
Me (to tower): Hey, it looks like we have a bit of a situation here before we get airborne. Can you give us a minute before taxing into position?"
ATC will likely say something like, "Sure, is anything wrong?"
I say, "I'm checking now."
Call the FA and ask her why she asked and ask her why she did not tell us. Depending on the situation I would then determine whether or not to abort.
Can I take this a little further:
You call the flight attendant and ask why. "Because a passenger told me she saw what appeared to be a gun sticking out of someones bag when he put it in the overhead compartment. She was not sure though. I was thinking it was the LEO, but was not sure. Like I said, I am not sure where he is sitting. That is why I asked you."
You say: "I didn't even know there was an LEO on here."
Now do you:
A) Assume he is the LEO and continue flight
B) Declare an emergency to ATC: Possible Passenger with weapon.
C) Approach the man and ask him to search his luggage.
Me (to tower): Hey, it looks like we have a bit of a situation here before we get airborne. Can you give us a minute before taxing into position?"
ATC will likely say something like, "Sure, is anything wrong?"
I say, "I'm checking now."
Call the FA and ask her why she asked and ask her why she did not tell us. Depending on the situation I would then determine whether or not to abort.
Can I take this a little further:
You call the flight attendant and ask why. "Because a passenger told me she saw what appeared to be a gun sticking out of someones bag when he put it in the overhead compartment. She was not sure though. I was thinking it was the LEO, but was not sure. Like I said, I am not sure where he is sitting. That is why I asked you."
You say: "I didn't even know there was an LEO on here."
Now do you:
A) Assume he is the LEO and continue flight
B) Declare an emergency to ATC: Possible Passenger with weapon.
C) Approach the man and ask him to search his luggage.
sleepy3528
Well-Known Member
federal flight deck
yeah the DOT's on the flight deck program is very humorous:
(during psychiatric analysis interview with just released F18 fighter pilot)
doc: do you think you could use deadly force if neccessary?
pilot: i have ...been in the military for the past 12 years. i have taken lives in combat.
doc: i see... so do you think you should be allowed to carry a gun in the cockpit?
pilot: i have flown with a sidearm for the past 10 years.
this perticular person was released from the program with no explanation and no reasoning. the only thing that pilot could think of that brought up any doubts or concerns by the doc was these two questions..... the whole program is pretty ridiculous but i think they are in the works of getting it changed.
if i were the captain in this case i would taxi and hold... get FO on the intercom with flight attendent and ask what the concern is? and why wasn't i notified. if she has an explanation or i understand the problem ... depart if not... very simply taxi back on the runway to the first intersection and nicely ask ATC if you can cut back inline... tell ATC you are having a difficulty with ::insert BS here:: and apologize... hoepfully by the time your back inline... you will have everything taken care of.
yeah the DOT's on the flight deck program is very humorous:
(during psychiatric analysis interview with just released F18 fighter pilot)
doc: do you think you could use deadly force if neccessary?
pilot: i have ...been in the military for the past 12 years. i have taken lives in combat.
doc: i see... so do you think you should be allowed to carry a gun in the cockpit?
pilot: i have flown with a sidearm for the past 10 years.
this perticular person was released from the program with no explanation and no reasoning. the only thing that pilot could think of that brought up any doubts or concerns by the doc was these two questions..... the whole program is pretty ridiculous but i think they are in the works of getting it changed.
if i were the captain in this case i would taxi and hold... get FO on the intercom with flight attendent and ask what the concern is? and why wasn't i notified. if she has an explanation or i understand the problem ... depart if not... very simply taxi back on the runway to the first intersection and nicely ask ATC if you can cut back inline... tell ATC you are having a difficulty with ::insert BS here:: and apologize... hoepfully by the time your back inline... you will have everything taken care of.
Stone Cold
Well-Known Member
I'd be wondering how I got a FA and pax on my aircraft:bandit:
aviatorrbt
New Member
overall... i agree that i would delay and if needed taxy accross and if needed, go back to the gate. there is no reason to take off being unsure about a gun on board. so what if your late? your alive. some crazy could have sneaked a gun on board and done some things you could have totally regreted. take the 10 min delay and check, then go back to the line and hopefully sneak in before another plane. jk. leo's have to check in, if they dont its a big prob. now i know im not a captain or even a FO, but when i was getting my PPL my instructor said if you ever doubt anything... ie fuel, time... always react first... then figure everything out later. it would be a extremely bad if the unknown leo you had on board turned out to be a nut with a gun... on your plane no doubt.
Matthew-
Air Marshalls carry what is known as a "Frangible" bullet. It will go into a person but shatters on contact with anything harder than human tissue. It stops the round from going thru the plane and cuts down on the chance of a ricochet. They have tested it on aircraft and never have put more than a dent in anything metal.
I hope it make you sleep better
Air Marshalls carry what is known as a "Frangible" bullet. It will go into a person but shatters on contact with anything harder than human tissue. It stops the round from going thru the plane and cuts down on the chance of a ricochet. They have tested it on aircraft and never have put more than a dent in anything metal.
I hope it make you sleep better 
surreal1221
Well-Known Member
Matthew-
Air Marshalls carry what is known as a "Frangible" bullet. It will go into a person but shatters on contact with anything harder than human tissue. It stops the round from going thru the plane and cuts down on the chance of a ricochet. They have tested it on aircraft and never have put more than a dent in anything metal.
Interesting. Didn't know this.
LoadMasterC141
Well-Known Member
One small hole in the plane that may or may not cause the plane to slowly decompress (No it will not rapid decompress, in a larger plane) is a small price to pay to thwart a person that intends to blow you and your plane up and/or fly you and your plane into a large building.
As a C-141 crewmember, different situations warranted who would be armed on the crew. Generally though, one Loadmaster and the Copilot were armed anytime we flew into hostile fire zones, and when the mission warranted. Additionally, we carried enough weapons to outfit the whole crew in a gun box hidden in the crew loft. I actually did not care for it. That dang gun pointing into your armpit, “Concealed” under your flight suit was a tad bit nerveracking for me(Like no one notices the huge bulge). I used to cheat at the base ops clearing barrel and go through the round chambering motions before I loaded the clip hehe. Then, every base you went to, you had to make an extra trip to the armory and drop the guns off before you could go party err rest.
When we carried the presidents “limo service”, the Secret Service guys were armed to the teeth. I never knew you could hide that many guns on your person.
As a C-141 crewmember, different situations warranted who would be armed on the crew. Generally though, one Loadmaster and the Copilot were armed anytime we flew into hostile fire zones, and when the mission warranted. Additionally, we carried enough weapons to outfit the whole crew in a gun box hidden in the crew loft. I actually did not care for it. That dang gun pointing into your armpit, “Concealed” under your flight suit was a tad bit nerveracking for me(Like no one notices the huge bulge). I used to cheat at the base ops clearing barrel and go through the round chambering motions before I loaded the clip hehe. Then, every base you went to, you had to make an extra trip to the armory and drop the guns off before you could go party err rest.
When we carried the presidents “limo service”, the Secret Service guys were armed to the teeth. I never knew you could hide that many guns on your person.
ananoman
New Member
Back in the day, when they were issued .38 revolvers, they used to carry Glaser Safety Slugs, but it appears the new ammo is not frangible. The last I heard they were still using Speer Gold Dots in their .357 Sig autos.
Some interesting reading:
http://www.airportbusiness.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=5&id=6827
http://www.whistleblower.org/template/page.cfm?page_id=151
It does appear that they have fixed the hotel, boarding, and dress code problems that made the FAMs stand out like sore thumbs. The ammo issue is a tradeoff. The Gold Dot is an excellent choice for normal use, but leaves a lot to be desired in an airplane. In the first article Massad Ayoob advocates going to a lighter round, which would be less likely to exit the body, but this still doesn't help if you miss your intended target. Using frangible ammo is not without risk either. It can cause devastating wounds, but they the very feature which makes them desirable (a lack of penetration) can cause them to be unreliable against an assailant. If it was me, I would have picked a larger, lower velocity round. The .45 has excellent stopping power, but would be less likely to penetrate the cockpit or punch holes in something important. That .357 Sig is a really hot round. The Texas Highway Patrol switched from the .45acp to the .357 Sig round because it penetrated car bodies much easier, which is important in their line of work. From personal experience shooting cars with a .45, I can tell you that it usually won't make it through both sides of a door, especially if it is an older car.
Some interesting reading:
http://www.airportbusiness.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=5&id=6827
http://www.whistleblower.org/template/page.cfm?page_id=151
It does appear that they have fixed the hotel, boarding, and dress code problems that made the FAMs stand out like sore thumbs. The ammo issue is a tradeoff. The Gold Dot is an excellent choice for normal use, but leaves a lot to be desired in an airplane. In the first article Massad Ayoob advocates going to a lighter round, which would be less likely to exit the body, but this still doesn't help if you miss your intended target. Using frangible ammo is not without risk either. It can cause devastating wounds, but they the very feature which makes them desirable (a lack of penetration) can cause them to be unreliable against an assailant. If it was me, I would have picked a larger, lower velocity round. The .45 has excellent stopping power, but would be less likely to penetrate the cockpit or punch holes in something important. That .357 Sig is a really hot round. The Texas Highway Patrol switched from the .45acp to the .357 Sig round because it penetrated car bodies much easier, which is important in their line of work. From personal experience shooting cars with a .45, I can tell you that it usually won't make it through both sides of a door, especially if it is an older car.
