Why Osama pulled it off

[Occhidiangela]

http://humor.gryphontech.com/pilots/

When the decision in the early 70's regarding to not arm aircrews, put more marshalls on board, was taken as a matter of policy, pre regulation, the opportunity for the funny little cartoon in the link to have been a deterrent was lost. What with all of the hijackings that were conducted in the 70's, all to draw attention to the plight of 'XXX' oppressed group, one wonders at the institutional myopia it took to play Ostrich.

There is no free lunch, just the illusion of security. And as Wulfgar pointed out,

"There is no security."

[pakman]

There is no such thing as free. Nothing is free. :) Kinda like the only thing that is guaranteed in life are taxes and death.

It would be bad***, though, to see a pilot walking around with a 12" barrel .50 Desert Eagle strapped to his leg. While the terrorist is trying to light his shoe, he gets to see twelve inches of glory in his face when he looks up.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Major topic on the radio around here yesterday morning was the delays getting through SeaTac airport security. Almost a third of the flights were delayed in leaving and still over 100 people missed their flights. All because the government decided to fix what wasn't broken. Oh, and chose to "balance it's budget" by laying off a large number of monitors right at the start of the Summer travel period.

Proving, once again, if you want something screwed royally, get the government to do it. "Half the service at twice the cost" would make a nice federal motto. And they could adopt Franklin's suggestion for the national bird as their own.

--Pete

[TaMeOlta]

I thought most airline agencies still require 2 hours early check in time* ? These people are still late when doing that - or are trying to sneak in under the clock ?

*Actually , when I call to confirm , I ask the Agency what the local check in time should be.

[--Pete]

Hi,

These were people that got to the airport as much as three hours prior to their flight.

SeaTac is an origination airport for a lot of flights. So, early mornings are very crowded. Monday mornings even more so. The interviews I heard with the airport authorities and the fed boss basically said that the fed cannot afford to put enough people on the monitors to handle peak loads, just to handle average loads. The time to clear one person has gone from 8 seconds to 32 seconds. The airport has doubled the number of security stations, but the fed is only manning about half of them. Apparently, among other problems is that the fed cannot (or has not, it was a bit unclear) hire part time employees and doesn't want to have their people working split shifts.

So, if it takes a hundred people to work the peak and they only need fifty to work the average, the fed's solutions are either to inconvenience (not as in "slow down", but as in "You missed your flight? Tough sh*t. You can always try again tomorrow.") everyone in that peak load or to have fifty people sitting around scratching their ass all the rest of the day.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

9mm Glock with semi wad cutters or rubber bullets would be more appropriate.

[pakman]

Nice Toenails.

[wundergore]

Actually, you would really only need a Ruger (or other brand) .22 with some subsonic ammunition. Very small chance of penetration of the walls.

W>

[kandrathe]

Yeah, I was thinking non-lethal. If you went as low as .22 caliber you may not have enough force. From my experience, .22 caliber is similiar to getting whacked hard with a 2x4.

[goldfish]

The armed pilots would still have likely been trained to cooperate with terrorists and avoid casualties. After all, it's not like the passengers themselves are unable to overpower a few boneheads with box cutters.

Al Quaeda took advantage of an operting policy (not confronting terrorists) which, up until that time, had been a logical and functional operating policy. Prior terrorists all wanted to make a statement, go to Cuba, etc.

Al Queada had one chance to exploit that operating policy and they did so. They couldn't do the same now.

Edit: Too many "they"s made sentence unclear.

[TaiDaishar]

The armed pilots would still have likely been trained to cooperate with terrorists and avoid casualties.  After all, it's not like the passengers themselves are unable to overpower a few boneheads with box cutters.

I doubt that this "policy" was the thing which prevented the passengers of taking over the plane, most likely was that they simply waited their lives off for someone else to be the hero.

Oh and in 9/11 there was another airplane that was most likely taken by the passangers and even though didn't succeed to land safely at least didn't crash on another building that would've killed dozens, hundreds or maybe even hundreds more lives.

[wundergore]

Yeah, I was thinking non-lethal.  If you went as low as .22 caliber you may not have enough force.  From my experience, .22 caliber is similiar to getting whacked hard with a 2x4.

A .22 is more than enough to kill you, so i would not consider it non-lethal.

I've also read that the airlines were considering arming the pilots with Tazers instead of firearms.

W>

[--Pete]

Hi,

Al Quaeda took advantage of an operting policy (not confronting terrorists) which, up until that time, had been a logical and functional operating policy.

It was never a "logical" operating policy. There's an old saying, "as long as you pay danegeld, you'll never get rid of the Dane." Hijacking worked because the world let it work.

--Pete

[Feryar]

I doubt that this "policy" was the thing which prevented the passengers of taking over the plane, most likely was that they simply waited their lives off for someone else to be the hero.

Pre-9/11 I would never go against a hijacker carrying a knife, simply because the odds of getting hurt would be bigger than if I just waited them out. That's my personal opinion though, others might feel different.
After seeing 9/11 and what they were capable of doing, I guess I'd be going for their throats if it happened on a flight I was on today.

Oh and in 9/11 there was another airplane that was most likely taken by the passangers and even though didn't succeed to land safely at least didn't crash on another building that would've killed dozens, hundreds or maybe even hundreds more lives.

My memory might be a bit off here, but wasn't that because they heard that other planes had been crashed and then decided to confront the hijackers? I'm pretty sure I read that somewhere.



Like others mentioned in this thread, I'm sure a hijack today would result in much stiffer resistance from the passengers. Back before 9/11 I think most people would expect to walk out of the plane sooner or later, simply because most hijacks ended with the bad-guys being shot or simply surrendering.

[kandrathe]

"Can" vs "Likely"

IMO, a .22 caliber bullet doesn't cut it. But, if it is well aimed, a kick in the groin can kill.

[Occhidiangela]

The issue of how a policy, once adopted, can have far reaching consequences. Pete's parallel to the Daneguild is spot on. The chance to nip the problem in the bud, along with a lot of hijackings in the 80's and 9o's was lost when a policy of appeasing hijackers in an effort to not risk loss of life amounted to large scale enabling behaviour: not just in America, but as the result of a worldwide 'cost-benefit' decision.

It made for some interesting news stories and a few screwed up raids on hijacked planes that got passengers killed by light forces, on the ground, in some airports. It also made for some great successes in identical missions.

Mixed bag, but isn't an ounce of prevention better than a pound of cure?

[Walkiry]

http://humor.gryphontech.com/pilots/

I don't get the joke. :ph34r:

*Hides*