United - pilots with taser guns?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: California, USA
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
United - pilots with taser guns?
ELK GROVE VILLAGE, Ill. (AP) -- United Airlines acknowledged Friday that it is one of several U.S. carriers looking into the possibility of arming its pilots with stun guns.
A spokeswoman stressed that their use would hinge on approval by the Federal Aviation Administration.
"It is something that we're interested in,'' United spokeswoman Chris Nardella said. "We're working closely with our pilots union. But we've made no decision.''
The pilots union has endorsed the idea.
"We support it as a minimum,'' union spokesman Herb Hunter said. "We need some kind of a defensive system in the cockpit. Whether we go farther than stun guns, to hand guns, remains to be seen.''
Stun guns would supplement security efforts that include reinforced cockpit doors and other measures aimed at foiling hijack attempts.
Mesa Air Group, which operates America West Express and US Airways Express, announced three weeks ago it planned to train its pilots to use stun guns. Indianapolis-based American Trans Air said this week it has contacted several stun gun manufacturers and plans to make a decision soon.
The Air Transport Association, trade group for the major airlines, opposes the use of lethal weapons by pilots but supports the study of non-lethal devices for crew members, particularly flight attendants, spokesman Michael Wascom said Friday. He said stun guns are "worthy of looking at.''
The FAA is currently reviewing its rule prohibiting any deadly or dangerous weapon on scheduled passenger flights. Congress, which has been working to tighten airline security since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, also could override it.
United, whose parent company is UAL Corp. (NYSE:UAL - news), declined to discuss specifics of its stun-gun considerations. But Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Taser International Inc. [NasdaqSC:TASR - news] said this week it had recently been in touch with five domestic airlines about the possibility of supplying stun guns.
A spokeswoman stressed that their use would hinge on approval by the Federal Aviation Administration.
"It is something that we're interested in,'' United spokeswoman Chris Nardella said. "We're working closely with our pilots union. But we've made no decision.''
The pilots union has endorsed the idea.
"We support it as a minimum,'' union spokesman Herb Hunter said. "We need some kind of a defensive system in the cockpit. Whether we go farther than stun guns, to hand guns, remains to be seen.''
Stun guns would supplement security efforts that include reinforced cockpit doors and other measures aimed at foiling hijack attempts.
Mesa Air Group, which operates America West Express and US Airways Express, announced three weeks ago it planned to train its pilots to use stun guns. Indianapolis-based American Trans Air said this week it has contacted several stun gun manufacturers and plans to make a decision soon.
The Air Transport Association, trade group for the major airlines, opposes the use of lethal weapons by pilots but supports the study of non-lethal devices for crew members, particularly flight attendants, spokesman Michael Wascom said Friday. He said stun guns are "worthy of looking at.''
The FAA is currently reviewing its rule prohibiting any deadly or dangerous weapon on scheduled passenger flights. Congress, which has been working to tighten airline security since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, also could override it.
United, whose parent company is UAL Corp. (NYSE:UAL - news), declined to discuss specifics of its stun-gun considerations. But Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Taser International Inc. [NasdaqSC:TASR - news] said this week it had recently been in touch with five domestic airlines about the possibility of supplying stun guns.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Bechuanaland
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
from a previous (September) thread:
Airbus has since refused to answer this question below (posed by Managing Editor of Air Safety Week) - on security grounds.
Airbus has since refused to answer this question below (posed by Managing Editor of Air Safety Week) - on security grounds.
ask Airbus about stun guns(TAZERS) and their potential impact ON their FBW aircraft.
I've asked (but not yet gotten an answer from) an electrical engineer who first raised with me the question of the dubious practise (for weight-saving) of using the fuselage as an earth return medium in airliner electrics. In my view it's likely a given that the low-amp high-voltage TASER stun gun would be quite disruptive to sensitive electronics if they were to come in contact with the fuselage skin or any other (which means all) bonded component. Given that 100% bonding is always required in airframe metallic structures, it's hard to predict any definite effect on a particular system - but I would guess that a post-TASER FBW Airbus would be a markedly different proposition to a pre-TASERed one - and the variations wouldn't be along the lines that any of the Airbus systems designers had in mind. Prof Elaine Scarry could have a field day postulating with the EMI and EMP of that proposition.
The first thing that comes to my mind is that you would trip flight-control computers and fry CPU's. LED's (light emitting diodes), LCD's (Liquid Crystal Displays) would be lost permanently so that the actual status of systems would be indeterminate. Pilot's VDU's would probably be lost and basically the "glass" of a glass cockpit would become a dark and empty vessel. Solenoids and relays, being not as sensitive to voltage, would likely continue to do their duty. So you might well end up with a perfectly running vehicle, status unknown due to screen and indicator outages - but with no flight control anyway. That's just my best guess and you'd certainly need that opinion verified by someone who knew what they were talking about.
.
click link
I've asked (but not yet gotten an answer from) an electrical engineer who first raised with me the question of the dubious practise (for weight-saving) of using the fuselage as an earth return medium in airliner electrics. In my view it's likely a given that the low-amp high-voltage TASER stun gun would be quite disruptive to sensitive electronics if they were to come in contact with the fuselage skin or any other (which means all) bonded component. Given that 100% bonding is always required in airframe metallic structures, it's hard to predict any definite effect on a particular system - but I would guess that a post-TASER FBW Airbus would be a markedly different proposition to a pre-TASERed one - and the variations wouldn't be along the lines that any of the Airbus systems designers had in mind. Prof Elaine Scarry could have a field day postulating with the EMI and EMP of that proposition.
The first thing that comes to my mind is that you would trip flight-control computers and fry CPU's. LED's (light emitting diodes), LCD's (Liquid Crystal Displays) would be lost permanently so that the actual status of systems would be indeterminate. Pilot's VDU's would probably be lost and basically the "glass" of a glass cockpit would become a dark and empty vessel. Solenoids and relays, being not as sensitive to voltage, would likely continue to do their duty. So you might well end up with a perfectly running vehicle, status unknown due to screen and indicator outages - but with no flight control anyway. That's just my best guess and you'd certainly need that opinion verified by someone who knew what they were talking about.
.
click link
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Zealand
Age: 73
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would personally be happier with a 39 inch katana (Japanese sword) - but it would be hard to get a decent swing on that blade in a cockpit. So a 16 inch bayonet (as a stabber) would be a good compromise.
However they have even taken away my "knock off" SAK (Swiss Army Knife) that came with the shaving foam - with its' pissy 2 inch blade, corkscrew and opener. So I can no longer open bottles of beer or wine - or even the odd hotel window.
So now I have to rely on the "woolworth" bolts that have been installed and if anyone makes it through those then I suppose it's either the teeth or throwing Jep books.
Sure I have other items on the flight deck I might use - but they are not really weapons per se. A little thought and innovation goes a long way - but what about something made for the job?
MG
However they have even taken away my "knock off" SAK (Swiss Army Knife) that came with the shaving foam - with its' pissy 2 inch blade, corkscrew and opener. So I can no longer open bottles of beer or wine - or even the odd hotel window.
So now I have to rely on the "woolworth" bolts that have been installed and if anyone makes it through those then I suppose it's either the teeth or throwing Jep books.
Sure I have other items on the flight deck I might use - but they are not really weapons per se. A little thought and innovation goes a long way - but what about something made for the job?
MG
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: somewhere near you
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess it similair with firearms. What would happen if the pilot went to kill the hijacker and missed? Harmless people could be killed and/or fuselage could be pierced. Does any one have any info on whether planes could stop a bullet?
Rob
Rob
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skymarshals are aremed with ammo which is designed not to penetrate the fuselage skin.
The stun gun idea sounds like a good one -the engineer who said it would disable the aircraft sounded a bit alarmist. On what basis has he written his report -and why mention airbus specifically? All the modern jets have similar -often identical, electronic gear in the flight deck.
The stun gun idea sounds like a good one -the engineer who said it would disable the aircraft sounded a bit alarmist. On what basis has he written his report -and why mention airbus specifically? All the modern jets have similar -often identical, electronic gear in the flight deck.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Presumably Concorde pilots will never be armed, as the aircraft is already 'faster than a speeding bullet', so presumably if a round was released inside the aircraft at mach 2, the hijacker could simply 'pluck' it out of the air grinning, and say something Arnoldesque, like "Remember when I said I'd kill you last? - I lied!"
Hey, these things need to be looked into!
Hey, these things need to be looked into!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: England
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The whole issue of arming anyone on a plane makes me shudder.
Even if a sky marshal is available, the chances of them being able to make an accurate shot and disable anyone who is a possible threat is low - and these are the guys who have regular practice with guns.
As for stun guns/tasers - forget it! The accuracy of these devices is even less predictable, regardless of who is operating them.
Previous hijack rescue missions on the ground have proved on several occasions that the use of guns on aircraft is highly risky, never mind airborne occurances.
It has been readily accepted that the perpatrators of the Sept 11th atrocities had not informed their fellow hijackers of the true mission intentions, and there is some considerable doubt as to whether they terrorists would have gone through with the hijack had they known.
Improvements need to be concentrated on security on the ground, not hysterical soloutions like this.
Even if a sky marshal is available, the chances of them being able to make an accurate shot and disable anyone who is a possible threat is low - and these are the guys who have regular practice with guns.
As for stun guns/tasers - forget it! The accuracy of these devices is even less predictable, regardless of who is operating them.
Previous hijack rescue missions on the ground have proved on several occasions that the use of guns on aircraft is highly risky, never mind airborne occurances.
It has been readily accepted that the perpatrators of the Sept 11th atrocities had not informed their fellow hijackers of the true mission intentions, and there is some considerable doubt as to whether they terrorists would have gone through with the hijack had they known.
Improvements need to be concentrated on security on the ground, not hysterical soloutions like this.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: California, USA
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe this is something for many of you to consider:
Atlanta Journal-Constitution - 11.6.2001
EQUAL TIME - Arming pilots a security measure that wouldn't fail
By NICHOLAS RYDER
The author is a captain for a commercial airline.
I've seen it reported that ground-based and underpaid airport X-ray screeners, the Federal Aviation Administration, the airlines, the National Guard or various other groups are the "last line of defense" for airline passengers.
Not quite.
Correct answer: the men and women sitting up in the pointy end of the airplane.
But unfortunately for all of us, pilots are not yet trusted with a viable, foolproof means of self-defense. The incredible paradox, though, is that we are trusted with $70 million airplanes and 250 or more lives. There is only one absolutely, positively guaranteed way to stop airborne perpetrators of crime: a handgun, fired at point-blank range.
Part of the beauty of the handgun deterrent is that not every pilot needs to carry one; just enough pilots so that the bad guys know there is a chance they may be facing a gun if they're so unlucky as to actually get into the cockpit. Most pilots are former military officers, are familiar with guns and are not afraid to use one if they absolutely have to.
Those pilots who are not familiar with guns can be trained, if they wish. After all, how good a shot do you have to be to hit something at three feet?
I've heard a strange argument put forward that not all pilots might be stable enough to be allowed to carry a gun. Let me get this straight: He/she is trusted by the FAA to land a complex planeload of people on a dark and stormy winter's night but can't be trusted with a simple gun? What am I missing here?
With the changes in regulations and procedures that have been initiated since the tragic events of Sept. 11, pilots will no longer leave the cockpit for any reason during a disturbance, nor will they open the cockpit door. They will, more than likely, be getting the aircraft on the ground as fast as possible.
A gun carried by a pilot would not be used to protect passengers or flight attendants on the other side of the cockpit door. That's the job of sky marshals, flight attendants and when requested, able-bodied passengers. A pilot's handgun would only be used to prevent the cockpit door from being breached and the airplane from being brought down. I haven't met a pilot yet who wants to go back in the cabin and have a shootout or arrest somebody.
The argument about a pilot's gun being taken away and used against him or her is ludicrous. Anyone unlucky enough to have forced his way into the cockpit would be shot before he could get close to the pilot to get his or her gun.
Guns in the cockpit are not a substitute for reinforced doors or trained, armed sky marshals. Pilots need something that is guaranteed to work if other measures fail.
This is not a gun control issue -- it's a survival issue. We're talking about a tool whose sole function and use would be as a last-ditch device to prevent what happened on Sept. 11 from happening again. It's that simple, and you should support it.
With the benefit of hindsight, no one can dispute that if those brave Sept. 11 flight crews had been allowed to carry handguns, they, their passengers and all the ground victims would still be alive.
Atlanta Journal-Constitution - 11.6.2001
EQUAL TIME - Arming pilots a security measure that wouldn't fail
By NICHOLAS RYDER
The author is a captain for a commercial airline.
I've seen it reported that ground-based and underpaid airport X-ray screeners, the Federal Aviation Administration, the airlines, the National Guard or various other groups are the "last line of defense" for airline passengers.
Not quite.
Correct answer: the men and women sitting up in the pointy end of the airplane.
But unfortunately for all of us, pilots are not yet trusted with a viable, foolproof means of self-defense. The incredible paradox, though, is that we are trusted with $70 million airplanes and 250 or more lives. There is only one absolutely, positively guaranteed way to stop airborne perpetrators of crime: a handgun, fired at point-blank range.
Part of the beauty of the handgun deterrent is that not every pilot needs to carry one; just enough pilots so that the bad guys know there is a chance they may be facing a gun if they're so unlucky as to actually get into the cockpit. Most pilots are former military officers, are familiar with guns and are not afraid to use one if they absolutely have to.
Those pilots who are not familiar with guns can be trained, if they wish. After all, how good a shot do you have to be to hit something at three feet?
I've heard a strange argument put forward that not all pilots might be stable enough to be allowed to carry a gun. Let me get this straight: He/she is trusted by the FAA to land a complex planeload of people on a dark and stormy winter's night but can't be trusted with a simple gun? What am I missing here?
With the changes in regulations and procedures that have been initiated since the tragic events of Sept. 11, pilots will no longer leave the cockpit for any reason during a disturbance, nor will they open the cockpit door. They will, more than likely, be getting the aircraft on the ground as fast as possible.
A gun carried by a pilot would not be used to protect passengers or flight attendants on the other side of the cockpit door. That's the job of sky marshals, flight attendants and when requested, able-bodied passengers. A pilot's handgun would only be used to prevent the cockpit door from being breached and the airplane from being brought down. I haven't met a pilot yet who wants to go back in the cabin and have a shootout or arrest somebody.
The argument about a pilot's gun being taken away and used against him or her is ludicrous. Anyone unlucky enough to have forced his way into the cockpit would be shot before he could get close to the pilot to get his or her gun.
Guns in the cockpit are not a substitute for reinforced doors or trained, armed sky marshals. Pilots need something that is guaranteed to work if other measures fail.
This is not a gun control issue -- it's a survival issue. We're talking about a tool whose sole function and use would be as a last-ditch device to prevent what happened on Sept. 11 from happening again. It's that simple, and you should support it.
With the benefit of hindsight, no one can dispute that if those brave Sept. 11 flight crews had been allowed to carry handguns, they, their passengers and all the ground victims would still be alive.
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A bullet piercing the skin of a pressurized airliner would most likely not be a big deal. They are designed for it believe it or not. The skin is designed to be "ripstop" so that you might have a partial or complete depressurization which is actually no big deal, and in this circumstance would even be working in the crews favor, but beyond that, nothing is likely to happen.
Several large jets were hit by gunfire during the Los Angeles Rodney king riots. They all landed safely.
A taser discharge INSIDE the aircraft however, I am nowhere near as sure about. A lightning strike is designed to be whicked off the outside of the aircraft. A taser inbedding itself in the cicuit breaker pannels on the other hand is a completely different animal.
So on the balance, an aircraft is actually designed to take the sort of damage a bullet would inflict, I do not believe anythought has been given to a taser however.
Bohica
Several large jets were hit by gunfire during the Los Angeles Rodney king riots. They all landed safely.
A taser discharge INSIDE the aircraft however, I am nowhere near as sure about. A lightning strike is designed to be whicked off the outside of the aircraft. A taser inbedding itself in the cicuit breaker pannels on the other hand is a completely different animal.
So on the balance, an aircraft is actually designed to take the sort of damage a bullet would inflict, I do not believe anythought has been given to a taser however.
Bohica
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: here to eternity
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wino, I assume that during the Rodney King riots those aircraft were fairly low? If so, the pressure differential would have been extremely low, or zero. So of course they would survive whatever decompression resulted.
At 8 psi deltaP it would be a slightly different story.
At 8 psi deltaP it would be a slightly different story.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have seen a Taser demonstrated. Its use requires considerable skill, certainly much more than using a handgun. It is also a one shot device, in that if you don't hit your target first time, he gets a chance to hit you. I'm with Aviator. If my grandmother had been on one of those flights on Sept 11th, with a handgun she would have saved the aeroplane. Will it take another incident before the politicians stop posturing and recognise that, as a last line of defence, the handgun is effective and simple.
As for security being our last line of defence, don't make me laugh. That is not to denigrate the security personnel, who do their job with diligence. But if I wanted to get a sharp object on to the aircraft, I would slip it down the spine of my briefcase. Short of tearing everyones' bag apart, it would not be found. However, getting a gun on board, now that would not be so easy. So if the flightcrew had handguns, chances are they would be the only people on the 'plane so armed. That is how I would like it.
As for security being our last line of defence, don't make me laugh. That is not to denigrate the security personnel, who do their job with diligence. But if I wanted to get a sharp object on to the aircraft, I would slip it down the spine of my briefcase. Short of tearing everyones' bag apart, it would not be found. However, getting a gun on board, now that would not be so easy. So if the flightcrew had handguns, chances are they would be the only people on the 'plane so armed. That is how I would like it.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I carry a very large, heavy metal object in my flightbag, which is also useful for seeing in the dark. It's made by maglite, it's not a lot of protection, but it's allowed and it's better than nothing. I would like to have CS gas as well. Spray it, then don the O2 and goggles.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: hoschton, GA, USA
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stun guns are absolutely useless. First of all, you have to nearly touch the guy to zap him. If he has a boxcutter, you are very shortly going to be the newest member of Nicole Brown Simpson's PEZ dispensing team.
And what about the recharge time for the second perp? While you're smiling from your new mouth on your neck from the boxcutter, the second perp finishes you off. Think again!
Tasers aren't any better. Unless you can douse the guy with vodka first, and ignite it turning him into a roast. Don't laugh, a policeman did just that to a guy who they couldn't subdue. Turns out they had just liberally sprayed him with Pepper, whose carrying agent is alcohol...
Most military pilots know about bullets going thru airplanes. Most of the time they don't do anything but make a noise like the sound of a quarter hitting the fuselage. (At least AK-47/Chicom SKS that I've experienced, a much faster round 3500 FPS vs 1200 FPS.)
A nice well oiled, properly cared for automatic will do nicely to send the next perp to enter the cockpit to meet his maker.
They make nice bullets for people like that, hollow point with 30 or 40 BB pellets that explode on impact. I like them a lot, for they will stop a man but will not penetrate wallboard. They're called Magsafe, widely available here in the US of A. I use them at home.
The pilot arming provisions have been agreed to by both the Senate and the US House of Representatives. I'm sure there will be no shortage of volunteers for the course of instruction.
I've taken a good look on the bar on the door of my 757. It's only going to slow them down.
One of my company's airplanes recieved a fighter escort today into Denver, CO. Turns out they didn't answer an ACAR's message. The ACARS was locked up in a Dispatching function. Had there been a NORDO, (No Radio), it probably would have been shot down.
I think the least that you can do is let me fight for my life.
And what about the recharge time for the second perp? While you're smiling from your new mouth on your neck from the boxcutter, the second perp finishes you off. Think again!
Tasers aren't any better. Unless you can douse the guy with vodka first, and ignite it turning him into a roast. Don't laugh, a policeman did just that to a guy who they couldn't subdue. Turns out they had just liberally sprayed him with Pepper, whose carrying agent is alcohol...
Most military pilots know about bullets going thru airplanes. Most of the time they don't do anything but make a noise like the sound of a quarter hitting the fuselage. (At least AK-47/Chicom SKS that I've experienced, a much faster round 3500 FPS vs 1200 FPS.)
A nice well oiled, properly cared for automatic will do nicely to send the next perp to enter the cockpit to meet his maker.
They make nice bullets for people like that, hollow point with 30 or 40 BB pellets that explode on impact. I like them a lot, for they will stop a man but will not penetrate wallboard. They're called Magsafe, widely available here in the US of A. I use them at home.
The pilot arming provisions have been agreed to by both the Senate and the US House of Representatives. I'm sure there will be no shortage of volunteers for the course of instruction.
I've taken a good look on the bar on the door of my 757. It's only going to slow them down.
One of my company's airplanes recieved a fighter escort today into Denver, CO. Turns out they didn't answer an ACAR's message. The ACARS was locked up in a Dispatching function. Had there been a NORDO, (No Radio), it probably would have been shot down.
I think the least that you can do is let me fight for my life.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Bechuanaland
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shotone and Hugmonster
Good wishful thoughts - but unfortunately incorrect:
a. Aircraft survive lightning strikes most of the time because great attention is paid to them being properly "bonded". (i.e. every metal part being connected to every other metal part even if it takes a bonding strap - no discontinuities are permitted (lest a spark jump that gap and ignite vapours). "There were only 2 explosions due to lightning strike, with 396 million flight hours accumulated since the last event in 1976" (see http://www.iasa.com.au/PDF/execsum.pdf )
see http://www.iasa.com.au/PDF/ar98-26.pdf (a download) - Pg17 or search "lightning"
b. A properly bonded aircraft is a Faraday Cage, impervious to externally applied electrical fields (including lightning). That's one thing that helps you keep your "shields up" against HIRF (flying over Exmouth Cape's hugely powerful emitters for instance).
c. Unfortunately if the zapping source is within the pressure vessel there are a number of vulnerabilities. Not the least of these is the practice of using that beautifully bonded fuselage as an earth return (for weight-saving, otherwise there would need to be an SWER single wire earth return for most systems). This is the vulnerability. This characteristic, unique to aircraft electrics, also leads to frequent intermittent faults and anomalies (flickering gauges, autopilot disconnects, radio antenna faults). Remember the flickering fuel-flow gauge remarked upon by TWA800 pilots and FE just before they blew?
see http://www.iasa-intl.com/fuel_tank_dangers.htm#no2 for more info on just where that destructive spark came from (exactly).
d. So the internal lightning caused by the high voltages of a misdirected stun-gun or TASER can cause the damage as described and Airbus and Boeing are now thinking about a number of aspects. Firstly, whether stun-guns or TASERS would be a good idea and secondly (perhaps more importantly) whether a suicidal terrorist would find it an effective way of "dropping" an airplane. If you've seen the minute size of some of these devices, you can imagine that you'd have to look at a large number of Maglite Torches, biro's, fountain pens and nasal inhalers amongst boarding pax - before you found one.
e. The reason why Airbus was asked (and then went silly about it) is that FBW control is the most vulnerable. If they feel so strongly that this is not actually the case, and that there is no flight safety (nor security) threat, then they should publish the results of their recent trials and explain how this could be the case. Don't hold your breath.
"The stun gun idea sounds like a good one -the engineer who said it would disable the aircraft sounded a bit alarmist. On what basis has he written his report -and why mention airbus specifically? All the modern jets have similar -often identical, electronic gear in the flight deck. Hugggie:"Shot One, I have to agree. If he was correct, no aircraft would ever survive a lightning strike."
a. Aircraft survive lightning strikes most of the time because great attention is paid to them being properly "bonded". (i.e. every metal part being connected to every other metal part even if it takes a bonding strap - no discontinuities are permitted (lest a spark jump that gap and ignite vapours). "There were only 2 explosions due to lightning strike, with 396 million flight hours accumulated since the last event in 1976" (see http://www.iasa.com.au/PDF/execsum.pdf )
see http://www.iasa.com.au/PDF/ar98-26.pdf (a download) - Pg17 or search "lightning"
b. A properly bonded aircraft is a Faraday Cage, impervious to externally applied electrical fields (including lightning). That's one thing that helps you keep your "shields up" against HIRF (flying over Exmouth Cape's hugely powerful emitters for instance).
c. Unfortunately if the zapping source is within the pressure vessel there are a number of vulnerabilities. Not the least of these is the practice of using that beautifully bonded fuselage as an earth return (for weight-saving, otherwise there would need to be an SWER single wire earth return for most systems). This is the vulnerability. This characteristic, unique to aircraft electrics, also leads to frequent intermittent faults and anomalies (flickering gauges, autopilot disconnects, radio antenna faults). Remember the flickering fuel-flow gauge remarked upon by TWA800 pilots and FE just before they blew?
see http://www.iasa-intl.com/fuel_tank_dangers.htm#no2 for more info on just where that destructive spark came from (exactly).
d. So the internal lightning caused by the high voltages of a misdirected stun-gun or TASER can cause the damage as described and Airbus and Boeing are now thinking about a number of aspects. Firstly, whether stun-guns or TASERS would be a good idea and secondly (perhaps more importantly) whether a suicidal terrorist would find it an effective way of "dropping" an airplane. If you've seen the minute size of some of these devices, you can imagine that you'd have to look at a large number of Maglite Torches, biro's, fountain pens and nasal inhalers amongst boarding pax - before you found one.
e. The reason why Airbus was asked (and then went silly about it) is that FBW control is the most vulnerable. If they feel so strongly that this is not actually the case, and that there is no flight safety (nor security) threat, then they should publish the results of their recent trials and explain how this could be the case. Don't hold your breath.
Left Seat 747
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Malaysia
Age: 80
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aviator and Grand Slam - I agree completely. Unfortunately, I doubt the buerocrats will ever let us (pilots) carry a gun in our flight bag. They broke off the 2" file on my nail clippers this weekend. And I was in uniform.
Stun Guns sound good to the public but will not be effective for the reasons so well described in this thread.
I have to admit, I was dissapointed when I heard the head of ALPA make a case for guns in the cockpit (on the Larry King show) with the restriction of a two week training course at a military facility first. I think any short course (one day) would be fine. Or, simply being licensed to carry a conceiled weapon ought to be enough. As it was said earlier, this is a three foot range shot. And the deterrent of knowing some pilots have guns would probably eliminate most of the problem before it ever started.
Stun Guns sound good to the public but will not be effective for the reasons so well described in this thread.
I have to admit, I was dissapointed when I heard the head of ALPA make a case for guns in the cockpit (on the Larry King show) with the restriction of a two week training course at a military facility first. I think any short course (one day) would be fine. Or, simply being licensed to carry a conceiled weapon ought to be enough. As it was said earlier, this is a three foot range shot. And the deterrent of knowing some pilots have guns would probably eliminate most of the problem before it ever started.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 1,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And what happens if the terrorist is outside the cockpit cutting up your pax and now has hold of one of your cabin crew and is asking you to come out?
I think he will end up with a firearm.
I think he will end up with a firearm.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: up here I can't see a thing
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tasers are not really suitable in these circumstances, and are notoriously unreliable. The two wire attached fish-hooks that shoot out are easily deflected, for instance by belt buckles or armour, and both must find a purchase if the electrical charge that follows is going to have any effect. When used in Police situations, they are a "first attempt" non-lethal option to stop a suspect, with normal firearms ready and aimed by supporting officers should the Taser fail.
CS would be a dodgy option too, as the crew will become contaminated whether they inhale it or not, their masks will be limited protection as it can enter their system through eyes or any exposed moist(sweaty) skin.
A more suitable sidearm would be a revolver loaded with a high fragmentation safety rounds.
But all this assumes the attacker has breached the security door, or has coerced the crew to open it?
CS would be a dodgy option too, as the crew will become contaminated whether they inhale it or not, their masks will be limited protection as it can enter their system through eyes or any exposed moist(sweaty) skin.
A more suitable sidearm would be a revolver loaded with a high fragmentation safety rounds.
But all this assumes the attacker has breached the security door, or has coerced the crew to open it?