|
Author
|
Topic: A solution to the security problems on airlines?
|
BomboKlatt unregistered
|
posted 09-14-2001 00:23
This idea just popped into my head, and it seems so fucking obvious that I can't believe it hasn't been saturating the media over the past couple of days.I realize, this may have some downsides that I haven't thought about. I have been drinking . Why not reinstate the sky marshalls in EVERY domestic and international flight? Though this will definitely place on a financial strain on the airline industry, a small government subsidization would surely ease the burden. For people who can't figure it out by themselves, Sky Marshalls are armed guards placed upon airline flights, occassionally even within a bulletproof compartment. I'm positive this must have been brought up in legislature. So whats the downside? IP: Logged |
Clme cake fiend
|
posted 09-14-2001 00:51
When the skymarshals become the hijackers?Thats about the only thing I can think of.
IP: Logged |
fenomas argument nazi
|
posted 09-14-2001 03:37
Um, a new fox tv show about sky marshalls?What would they do, just sit? Why not train flight attendants in combat? IP: Logged |
Lardog unregistered
|
posted 09-14-2001 06:43
HA! Train flight attendants in combat!... You are funny. I travel (well, up to this point) quite a bit, 200 thousand plus miles in the last 18 months alone. And I have never seen a flight attendant who was either physically, or emotionally strong enough to handle a REAL crisis situation. To give you an idea of how much of the training they actually take in:(I'm an EMT in NJ, NY, and PA, as well as teach CPR, so I know what I'm talking about). Person has chest pains, within 2 minutes of having chest pains, the guy is STILL talking mind-you. The flight attendants have already pulled out the defibrillator. (which is used on UNCONSCIOUS, NONbreathing people)... Blazin' Idiots I tell you. Training them in combat would be a joke. Now.... US marshalls on every flight? I'd like to see that. I truly would, give them low velocity weapons like El Al. Hey, <200 bucks to go from New York to California and back is unreasonably LOW. I'd pay more for "guaranteed" safety. I have (in the past) always taken my pocket knife on planes because I carry it all the time, I knew it was legal and the hijackers did not "breech" security, whatever knives they had were probably legal. (3" - 4" max depending on airline, 4" per FAA, 3" per airlines like Northwest.. I knew the rules) What are people eating meals supposed to do on a plane now? Eat with a stinkin' plastic spork? A cellphone battery, all metal could easily conceal a metal knife... You can't stop knives. I think our airplanes need serious revisions as well. Hey, I'm not trying to seem heartless here, but losing 160-200 passengers over a hijacking gone wrong sure as hell beats 10,000+ dead. That's 50-100 planes worth of people! Better lose one planeload over steering a plane into other buildings, or sporting events. Example: Pilot's gotta take a leak, regardless of how strong the door is, pilot must exit cockpit. We need a second door BEHIND the bathroom to protect them. Real doors. We have truly been lucky as a country for the past 10+ years of zero hijackings.... Just my 2 1/2 cents.... IP: Logged |
InThrees Member with a member bigger than the member with a member
|
posted 09-14-2001 12:53
Bladed weapons also don't have to be metal, of course. I think screening for edged weapons will prove impossible in the long run. Hell, anyone REALLY determined could boldly sneak a disassembled ceramic firearm aboard a plane, but edged weapons are even easier. The average shoe could conceal a detacheable blade, and the slightly oversized fob of the person's keychain could in actuality be the handle. A few seconds later, he has a 4" blade. I think the real solution is more of a detainment situation. There was an editorial type article in the paper today, where the author said (in so many words) that if he was ever on a flight that was hijacked, he would consider himself good as dead... and while he may indeed die trying to subdue the hijackers, he knew that those behind him would eventually succeed. 3 to 5 men armed with knives simply CAN'T control 80 people who don't want to be cowed. Ultimately, Americans are going to have to realize that they simply CAN'T rely on others for protection anymore. I could use this as a stepping stone to launch into a tirade on why banning handguns and the like is a bad idea, but I won't. Those of you with any intelligence can imagine the things I would say. Anyway... We need to realize that no matter what precautions we take, people WILL get on board planes with the intention of hijacking it... what then? Preventative measures are fine, but recovery needs to be addressed as well. -3 IP: Logged |
Snag Leaky Pen
|
posted 09-14-2001 14:03
I was thinking about this earlier today.Now, we've already experienced the hijacking plane bomb scenario. So, I think that the next terrorist attack won't be another plane bomb. The airports are going to be really tight, and someone who knows what they're doing aren't going to walk into that kind of situation. So, what we have to watch out for right now I think, is other means of mass destruction and mass killing. Busses filled with fertilizer and C4. Men with bombs strapped to there chests walking into buildings could actually be something that we need to fear now. And, hopefully not, I think we have to be weary of missile attacks in the near future if a war should start, and other countries get involved. The United States will seriously never be the same. We have to be painstakingly careful. We always need to look over our shoulder. Everytime we're on a plane, bus, car, or even cashing a check we have to be worried. The terrorists have succeeded. We need to fear that. IP: Logged | |