Airline Piliots - inside scoop - good news!

[flintknapper]

I was mistaken for a FAM by a flight crew a few weeks ago, so I am not so sure they are easy to pick out.

Two six foot lengths of CAT5 cable are almost unbeatable during an in-flight emergency and anyone can carry them aboard. I keep mine in my laptop case and then transfer them to my jacket when I put my case under the seat in front of me.

The flight Crew may not have been playing as close attention as a determined terrorist. The goal of the terorist will be to neutralize any potential resistance. They won't worry about false positives. As long as they get any potential FAMs first.

Edited: because it was confusing wrong, and just plane screwed up

Experience has shown that potential terrorists do not operate this way. They have NEVER tried to take out other potential threats before beginning their assault in airplanes.

Ummmm, there were never any potential threats to take out. Policy prior to the events of 911 was one of compliance (as far as the airlines were concerned).

I'm not in the "everyone should be allowed to carry" on an airplane camp, I don't think it is necessary. All that is necessary is that every able bodied man and woman aboard a flight... be willing to fight back with whatever is at hand.

Unfortunately, we have to a large degree.. become a nation of cowards.

Just my .02

[lrb111]

I'm not in the "everyone should be allowed to carry" on an airplane camp, I don't think it is necessary. All that is necessary is that every able bodied man and woman aboard a flight... be willing to fight back with whatever is at hand.

Unfortunately, we have to a large degree.. become a nation of cowards.

Just my .02

The people of Flight 93 gave them that "Old fashioned beat down" mentioned earlier in this thread.

They are all still dead.

[AV8R]

I was mistaken for a FAM by a flight crew a few weeks ago, so I am not so sure they are easy to pick out.

Two six foot lengths of CAT5 cable are almost unbeatable during an in-flight emergency and anyone can carry them aboard. I keep mine in my laptop case and then transfer them to my jacket when I put my case under the seat in front of me.

You mean I'm not the only techie sneaking implements on board?! I took lessons from the mom of a childhood friend. She beat my friend and his siblings with AC extension cords. What can I say?...They had hard heads. Anyway, while that may have been considered abuse, I'm not concerned about any complaining that I abused a terrorist if there is no FAM onboard. So, I've been using standard six foot AC power cables...Heavier cable than CAT5 with slightly weighted ends that double as brutal impact devices and cutting heads. Really does sound like the old time bull whips from the movies.

As long as things are going in this direction, one might consider a couple of spare laptop batteries in a pair of knee-length wool hiking socks.

[flintknapper]

I'm not in the "everyone should be allowed to carry" on an airplane camp, I don't think it is necessary. All that is necessary is that every able bodied man and woman aboard a flight... be willing to fight back with whatever is at hand.

Unfortunately, we have to a large degree.. become a nation of cowards.

Just my .02

The people of Flight 93 gave them that "Old fashioned beat down" mentioned earlier in this thread.

They are all still dead.

I am not sure I understand your point.

If you mean to say these people responded and that the end result was that all were killed, then I must surmise...you think they should have done nothing, or you're making argument that if some had been armed they could have thwarted this attack.

In this case, the cockpit was breached and a terrorist was already at the controls when the counter attack occurred. Had an "Old fashioned beat down" been utilized earlier in the attack, the outcome may have been quite different. Instead, passengers allowed themselves to be herded to the back of the plane and held captive.

I doubt this would happen today even in absence of FAM's (which are not on every flight). The attitude and awareness level of most citizens has improved since that tragic event and terrorist's know it, but I stand my statement that most people will stand by and watch something terrible happen, rather than prepare for it, or God forbid... get involved.

Again, this is all just my opinion, maybe I should have more faith in my fellow man, but I see every generation less and less willing to defend themselves or others.

O.K. rant off...

Interesting subject.

[G.C.Montgomery]

There is no hard evidence to support the theory that an armed CHL holder would have made a hill of beans difference on Flight 93. The unarmed passengers DID retake the cockpit that day. However, IIRC the aircraft's attitude, rate of decent and lack of altitude by the time they did so put it beyond recovery.

Give me an objective argument to support armed passengers and I'm willing to listen. But as long as it boils down to "my rights are being violated," the discussion will go no where. Fact is, your rights went out the window the moment you set foot onboard an aircraft that is not owned or operated by you, the government or any other public entity to which you pay taxes. You have privileges set forth in the transportation contract you agreed to when you bought that plane ticket and that's it. Having said that, the airline should be considered liable for your protection as you have placed your life in their hands aboard their aircraft.

The domestic airlines of the US once lobbied against the FAM program and as a result there were only a handful prior to 9/11. Part of the airline argument at that time was the FAMs occupied seats and robbed the airlines of the revenue that could be generated by those seats. The airlines also argued that cost had to be offset by additional fees to the other passengers but competition further a handicapped them in comparison with international carriers. They further argued the international airlines were compensated when their respective countries took seats and could therefore offer tickets at lower prices than domestic carriers bound for the same destinations. This problem has been corrected in the current sceme of things but the point lurking here is that the argument is bigger than "your rights."

[cxm]

Jeff,

I'm missing your point I guess... I don't see anywhere in the Constitution where it says the 2nd Amendment isn't in force on aircraft...

I'd suggest it is a good idea to be very afraid of a government that does not trust it's citizens... of course the ideal situation would be a government that is afraid of the citizens like we used to have....


I'm comfortable with armed citizens... and don't subscribe to the "only the cops should have guns" theory.

V/r

Chuck

[jimlongley]

Having not seen anyone present a reason why not, I still feel that CHL holders should be allowed to carry.

[Liberty]

Having not seen anyone present a reason why not, I still feel that CHL holders should be allowed to carry.

I would guess that even those that aren't crazy about the idea would feel safer if they could carry.

[KBCraig]

Give me an objective argument to support armed passengers and I'm willing to listen.

The question should be: where's the objective argument that passengers should be disarmed?

But as long as it boils down to "my rights are being violated," the discussion will go no where. Fact is, your rights went out the window the moment you set foot onboard an aircraft that is not owned or operated by you, the government or any other public entity to which you pay taxes. You have privileges set forth in the transportation contract you agreed to when you bought that plane ticket and that's it.

Sorry, G.C. I'm a huge support of private property rights, and I absolutely agree with the airlines' right to set their own standards for boarding an airplane, but you've missed the target on this one.

The sad truth is, the airlines have no choice. That "transportation contract" that accompanies a ticket isn't up to the airlines: the security standards are mandated by, conducted by, and enforced by the federal government, no matter what the airlines wish. That is a matter of civil rights, because it's being enforced by the government.

Please, give me a system where I may contract with a carrier to transport me from one place to another, and the government has no say in it. One airline might require cavity searches, while another requires everyone to be armed.

Kevin

[KBCraig]

I dunno...I'm not going to delete my ramblings because I believe the focus of this thread should be elsewhere, and I want to get back to the Cowboy game...

Shoulda just stayed here.

[lrb111]

Having not seen anyone present a reason why not, I still feel that CHL holders should be allowed to carry.

I would guess that even those that aren't crazy about the idea would feel safer if they could carry.

Me too, and for more reasons than what "did" happen in the past.
A lot of folks are posting methods for their defense on a plane. I guarantee there are more measures that can be used successfully.

Now, having said that, all those measures and more, can be used against the passengers and crew.

The guy in the seat behind you can flip his own Cat5 over your neck. The belts with the heavy buckles, hidden maple nun-chuks, Fox 5.3 repackaged into plastic squeeze bottles, and host of other things, are there to contend with.

When you are left with bringing down the whole plane and killing everyone on board as the only defense, then you will know you should have been packing.

Too little too late, and all the elitists that think one should not be carrying, will claim there was nothing you could have done, even if you had a gun.

[flintknapper]

Having not seen anyone present a reason why not, I still feel that CHL holders should be allowed to carry.

I would guess that even those that aren't crazy about the idea would feel safer if they could carry.

Me too, and for more reasons than what "did" happen in the past.
A lot of folks are posting methods for their defense on a plane. I guarantee there are more measures that can be used successfully.

Now, having said that, all those measures and more, can be used against the passengers and crew.

The guy in the seat behind you can flip his own Cat5 over your neck. The belts with the heavy buckles, hidden maple nun-chuks, Fox 5.3 repackaged into plastic squeeze bottles, and host of other things, are there to contend with.

When you are left with bringing down the whole plane and killing everyone on board as the only defense, then you will know you should have been packing.

Too little too late, and all the elitists that think one should not be carrying, will claim there was nothing you could have done, even if you had a gun.

If we then apply what you have said about common items being used as weapons (by anyone), then why wouldn't terrorists (that qualify for a CHL) use this method to take a firearm aboard as well? It would then come down to numbers, would it not? A weapon (any weapon) is only used for the purpose of gaining an advantage. You don't want a terrorist to have any "advantages" within the confines of an airplane IMO.

There is no one on this forum more pro self defense than I, but it doesn't make good sense to have firearms present everywhere and under all conditions.

[lrb111]

There is no one on this forum more pro self defense than I, but it doesn't make good sense to have firearms present everywhere and under all conditions.

Wll, if the government can't or won't protect you, what are you going to do?
Pray you have equal footing with your cat5 against their box cutters, seat belt extensions. etc?

Would you pull a gun on a plane if you thought there might be 6 or 12 people sitting there with their hands on their pistols?

edit: That was rhetorical. I realize the jihadists are only looking to die, and take as many of us with them as they can. I just want to be able to vote that they go alone.

[40FIVER]

I've patiently read through all of the posts on this thread and there are excellent arguments both ways. But when the dust settles, KBCraig has stated the more important issue. Once you start giving in to the "more experienced", "better trained" mentality, before you know it, the government decides they are the only ones who can provide that and we lose our rights.

I don't want to be on a plane with some idiot CHLer who only shoots his gun when renewing his license, but I make that type of choice everyday when I leave my house. In reality, there are probably more idiot CHLers out there in the world than the dedicated CHLers who try to train and become better. And being in a stop & rob with one can get you just as dead.

Charlie

I can leave a Stop & Rob. The potential area of fire for a Stop & Rob is 360 degrees. On a tube (airplane) that FOF is MUCH smaller.

Unlike some of you, I am not afraid of the government. I don't just sit around and ignore everything they do either. Only allowing LE to be armed on aircraft is not encroaching on your "rights" at all.

I was trying to point out that the probability (although unproven) of being caught in a barrage of bullets from an untrained CHLer during a violent encounter is quite large compared to being in an airplane with a terrorist. I still stand behind what KBCraig wrote.

I haven't read of anyone saying on this thread that they were afraid of the government. I don't think it has even been inferred. Fearing the government and being afraid of the government are two different things. Wasn't it the government who illegally confiscated the guns in the wake of Hurricane Katrina? I'm tired of the government deciding that they know what is "best" for me.

Charlie

[flintknapper]

There is no one on this forum more pro self defense than I, but it doesn't make good sense to have firearms present everywhere and under all conditions.

Wll, if the government can't or won't protect you, what are you going to do?
Pray you have equal footing with your cat5 against their box cutters, seat belt extensions. etc?

Would you pull a gun on a plane if you thought there might be 6 or 12 people sitting there with their hands on their pistols?

edit: That was rhetorical. I realize the jihadists are only looking to die, and take as many of us with them as they can. I just want to be able to vote that they go alone.

I understand your frustration, and certainly none of the safeguards implemented today by the airlines are foolproof deterrents. Just the same, by allowing CHL's to carry on-board, you open up the possibility that terrorists would employ that same "legal" means of carry to take control of the plane or its passengers.

You ask a reasonable question: "Would you pull a gun on a plane if you thought there might be 6 or 12 people sitting there with their hands on their pistols?" I would answer..certainly not, but what are chances that even one, let alone 6-12 passengers on any given flight would be CHL holders? Then, of that number...how many would respond. Of the respondents, how many are good enough to neutralize one or more threats under dynamic conditions without shooting other passengers.

Logistically, unless you seated all persons with a firearm in the same section... then any response to a threat would result in biggest darn "cross fire" you ever saw.

Several able bodied men can easily overcome box cutters, and cables with empty hands. It takes guts, commitment, and a willingness to be injured...but it is doable.

If you guys want a truly awesome weapon with you while in flight, take a cane. After the edged weapons seminar...we can put on a combat cane seminar (three part) if anyone is interested. I am not aware of any restrictions concerning the carrying of a cane by the airlines.

Let a terrorist have his box cutter, cable, belt with buckle...etc. Give me a good solid cane, and I'll have him crying for his mommy in just a few seconds.