A320 crash

[Phil Perry]

Hey Adam , I don't have any 'Anomalies' ...... Bob

Hi Biggs,. . . .er,. . .if you had an anomaly,. . . how would you know ?

 

 

[dutchroll]

How did the remaining pilot get the friggin gun into the cockpit,er, flight deck?

Issued to them.

http://www.tsa.gov/about-tsa/federal-flight-deck-officers

 

 

[Phil Perry]

Question: Does the Flight Crew inc Pilot go through "Airport Security" each flight ?

Aparently they do in the U.S. Mike, I read a book by Patrick Smith ( askthepilot.com ) where he regaled a tale of being frisked by a lady security officer who took away his personal cutlery, carried in his pilot case, as there was a slightly serrated knife included, and this was not allowed to be carried onto an aircaft. He argued that it was standard airline cutlery, and was issued to all passengers with their meals,. . .but it was still confiscated ! Where do you draw this line ?

 

 

[Phil Perry]

Before others get to it, they can't even spell calibre.As I was told by a septic; "an armed society is a polite society". Poor show that so many had 'one up the spout'. I wonder if any actually had terrorist intent?

I think you'll find that it is US who spell CALIBER incorrectly, so my mate from New Jersey reckons,. . . . good job the rounds are not made from ALOOMINUM, we'd have another discussion. . .!

 

 

[Phil Perry]

And again for a 3rd scenario I hark back to the complete absurdity of the American "two in the cockpit" rules. The remaining pilot has a friggin' gun!! What the HELL is his flight attendant "minder" going to do if he's suicidal and wants to take the whole planeload out with him?

Yeah,I guess you`re right! Is there a solution?. probably not!. Hang on there!How did the remaining pilot get the friggin gun into the cockpit,er, flight deck?

 

Legally Issued to him. . . .read back a few posts . . . . .

 

 

[DWF]

I have heard that the next generation of airliners will be virtually fully automatic/computer controlled.

 

The flight deck crew will then consist of one man and a dog.

 

The man is there to reassure the passengers that a human is in charge ... and feed the dog.

 

The dog is there to bite the man if he touches ANYTHING.

 

 

 

[Phil Perry]

Purely from a commonsense angle, IF armed security guards ( Sky Marshalls ) end up being carried on ALL flights, then might I humbly suggest that firearms are discarded in favour of Tasers ? these things are very efffective, and non - lethal ( most of the time )

 

Guns and thin alloy fuselage skins don't go well together in my view, whatever you load the weapons with. . . .

 

Just a sugggestion. ( Don't shoot me down please,. . .just Taser me,. . . I've got an electric personality . . . )

 

 

[biggles]

Hi Biggs,. . . .er,. . .if you had an anomaly,. . . how would you know ?

Good point Phil, I guess that's another anomaly, but anyway I know I don't have one ...... Bob

 

 

[Phil Perry]

Good point Phil, I guess that's another anomaly, but anyway I know I don't have one ...... Bob

Well this is GOOD. Glad to hear it Biggles . . . unless the anomaly you don't have was a mnemonic anomaly, then of course you wouldn't have one. . . ."Doc, you gotta help me,. . . .I can only remember the first letter of all my sentences. . . . ." And Geez,. . .that's a really BIG Jabiru in your Icon,. . .oh, hang on, . . .I just zoomed in,. . .you're kneeling down,. . .sorry.

 

 

[gandalph]

Re tasers: they have a pretty limited range, you need to be reasonably close to the intended target. No point standing up in row 34 and trying to taser the guy battering at the cockpit door.

 

Good for taking down one person, but you need a second taser and a second set of hands for an accomplice and a third taser........etc etc.

 

Tasers are not always effective on all people, some have a lessened response to tasers and some drugs seem to render the target immune to their effect.

 

Re marshals with firearms. A 9mm automtic pistol with a 10 round magazine gives a Marshal a chance of managing a multi-perpetrator attack. Quick headshots are the stuff of Movies and T V programs. Centre body mass is the preferred and safer target (for the good guys not the perpetrators) Not saying there aren't people who can manage a 20 metre headshot Daz, but that's not how enforcement officers are trained.

 

 

[dazza 38]

Re tasers: they have a pretty limited range, you need to be reasonably close to the intended target. No point standing up in row 34 and trying to taser the guy battering at the cockpit door.Good for taking down one person, but you need a second taser and a second set of hands for an accomplice and a third taser........etc etc.

Tasers are not always effective on all people, some have a lessened response to tasers and some drugs seem to render the target immune to their effect.

 

Re marshals with firearms. A 9mm automtic pistol with a 10 round magazine gives a Marshal a chance of managing a multi-perpetrator attack. Quick headshots are the stuff of Movies and T V programs. Centre body mass is the preferred and safer target (for the good guys not the perpetrators) Not saying there aren't people who can manage a 20 metre headshot Daz, but that's not how enforcement officers are trained.

I agree, although from memory the Air marshall firearms test was that the shooter had to hit a head size target within a certain amount of time. They had a few seconds and the distance was about 10 metres or so. Most marshalls were recruited from the state and federal police forces and they couldnt shoot to save themselves. Not many ex military guys got a gig because they wanted peeps with a policing background.

I heard that the test parameters were lowered because nearly all of them failed.

 

Any decent IPSC shooter with a few years experience would easily pass the Air marshall shooting test. Hitting multiple dinner size plate targets in rapid succession is normal.

 

Ps- I say from memory because the shooting test was public knowledge at the time. I worked as a Range Officer at the Southport Indoor Pistol Club when the advertisments came out for the jobs, but it was pretty much a closed shop.

 

 

[dutchroll]

At dinner with a bunch of non-flying friends last night I was (as I expected!) asked about this accident. They were rather shocked to hear me guarantee that if I really truly wanted to, and in the absence of another pilot actually sitting strapped into the other pilot's seat at the controls, I could have the aircraft in a terminal dive from which recovery would be impossible within about 30 seconds, and certainly within 60 seconds. It was just an expression of how relatively ineffective the "policy" of having another crew member will be in practice.

 

As has already been stated on this thread, even the built-in extreme attitude protections of the Airbus can be totally overridden with two pushbutton selections.

 

What really concerns me is that this "band-aid, zero cost fix" will allow airlines to say "hey we've addressed this and it's no longer a safety issue", while the serious underlying problems of mental health assessment and treatment concerning this accident which are now being exposed day by day, fester without any attention at all - until the next similar occurrence.

 

 

[Phil Perry]

Re tasers: they have a pretty limited range, you need to be reasonably close to the intended target. No point standing up in row 34 and trying to taser the guy battering at the cockpit door.Good for taking down one person, but you need a second taser and a second set of hands for an accomplice and a third taser........etc etc.

Tasers are not always effective on all people, some have a lessened response to tasers and some drugs seem to render the target immune to their effect.

 

Re marshals with firearms. A 9mm automatic pistol with a 10 round magazine gives a Marshal a chance of managing a multi-perpetrator attack. Quick headshots are the stuff of Movies and T V programs. Centre body mass is the preferred and safer target (for the good guys not the perpetrators) Not saying there aren't people who can manage a 20 metre headshot Daz, but that's not how enforcement officers are trained.

I really don't want to appear pedantic here Gandalph,. . . . but a nine millimetre projectile is designed to be a very high velocity round, skin and bone do not present much attenuation to such a projectile . . .this velocity means that it is more than likely that someone struck by that calibre of projectile would, probably be killed or seriously slowed down by the impact, but in all likelihood, the bullet would continue on it's merry way, hitting something / someone else, or penetrating a fairly thin pressurised aircraft hull, with the obvious possibility of explosive decompression and a whole new can of worms.

 

If guns ARE going to be used for security / passenger protection on aircraft in the future,. . . and I sincerely hope that they never are. . . .since you've shot down my Taser suggestion. . . then the weapon MUST use a low velocity projectile, with fragmentation upon penetration a certainty. .38 soft nose lead is out of the question, if it misses the intended target, it will certainly penetrate an airliner hull or window very efficiently.

 

Just sayin' . . . . .

 

Phil

 

 

[dazza 38]

I really don't want to appear pedantic here Gandalph,. . . . but a nine millimetre projectile is designed to be a very high velocity round, skin and bone do not present much attenuation to such a projectile . . .this velocity means that it is more than likely that someone struck by that calibre of projectile would, probably be killed or seriously slowed down by the impact, but in all likelihood, the bullet would continue on it's merry way, hitting something / someone else, or penetrating a fairly thin pressurised aircraft hull, with the obvious possibility of explosive decompression and a whole new can of worms.If guns ARE going to be used for security / passenger protection on aircraft in the future,. . . and I sincerely hope that they never are. . . .since you've shot down my Taser suggestion. . . then the weapon MUST use a low velocity projectile, with fragmentation upon penetration a certainty. .38 soft nose lead is out of the question, if it misses the intended target, it will certainly penetrate an airliner hull or window very efficiently.

 

Just sayin' . . . . .

 

Phil

Hi Phil, the projectiles used a frangible and are designed not to penetrate through the aircraft fuselage.

 

 

[dazza 38]

Hi Phil, the projectiles used a frangible and are designed not to penetrate through the aircraft fuselage.

I have done a bit of research. The USA airmarshalls use P226 SIG Sauer pistols with 12 rounds of normal .357 SIG ammunition with 125 grain Hollow points.

They are not concerned if a round goes through a fuselage because nothing happens apart from a small leak out of the bullet hole. Massive explosive decompression is a fallacy.

 

The FAA and even the Myth Busters tested this out on pressurized aircraft. Nothing dramatic happens, just a slow leak.

 

 

[DGL Fox]

I have done a bit of research. The USA airmarshalls use P226 SIG Sauer pistols with 12 rounds of normal .357 SIG ammunition with 125 grain Hollow points.They are not concerned if a round goes through a fuselage because nothing happens apart from a small leak out of the bullet hole. Massive explosive decompression is a fallacy.

The FAA and even the Myth Busters tested this out on pressurized aircraft. Nothing dramatic happens, just a slow leak.

Ok I can understand going through the skin dazza...what about if the round goes through a window? I don't think that would be the same result as a wall punctured.

David

 

 

[gandalph]

Phil, I agree entirely with your sentiments re firearms on civilian aircraft. However, the projectile can be modified to cause maximum damage and be contained within the body of the target. Getting gruesome here but... That's why the centre of body mass is the primary target zone, maximum primary damage with maximum containment of fragments. In the recent hostage incident in Sydney, reports suggest that one of the hostages was killed by police bullet fragments from a ricochet off a hard surface within the cafe, not by fragments exiting the body of the hostage taker. In any case, those were not the type of bullets that would/should be used if governments are knee jerked into allowing arm on civilian aircraft.

 

One further point, I believe I have seen research somewhere ( please don't ask me for a reference or citation, it would take me ages to dig it up) on the effects of multiple small penetrations of a pressurised aircraft hull. I believe the results, while dramatic were not catastrophic. That doesn't in any way change my opposition to armed enforcers on civvy planes.

 

 

[alf jessup]

Phil, I agree entirely with your sentiments re firearms on civilian aircraft. However, the projectile can be modified to cause maximum damage and be contained within the body of the target. Getting gruesome here but... That's why the centre of body mass is the primary target zone, maximum primary damage with maximum containment of fragments. In the recent hostage incident in Sydney, reports suggest that one of the hostages was killed by police bullet fragments from a ricochet off a hard surface within the cafe, not by fragments exiting the body of the hostage taker. In any case, those were not the type of bullets that would/should be used if governments are knee jerked into allowing arm on civilian aircraft.One further point, I believe I have seen research somewhere ( please don't ask me for a reference or citation, it would take me ages to dig it up) on the effects of multiple small penetrations of a pressurised aircraft hull. I believe the results, while dramatic were not catastrophic. That doesn't in any way change my opposition to armed enforcers on civvy planes.

Gandalph

 

Going by the amount of shots fired at Martin place I'm surprised anyone got out alive.

 

 

[Marty_d]

The danger of hull penetration is where the projectile damages fuel/hydraulics/electrics as it goes through. Not an expert on this, but I would assume the risk is minimal where the trajectory is reasonably flat within the cabin (ie I'm assuming there's not a lot of cables/pipes going through the fuselage at cabin level, would they not be underneath or on top?)

 

 

[rgmwa]

What really concerns me is that this "band-aid, zero cost fix" will allow airlines to say "hey we've addressed this and it's no longer a safety issue", while the serious underlying problems of mental health assessment and treatment concerning this accident which are now being exposed day by day, fester without any attention at all - until the next similar occurrence.

Hopefully not. Although this isn't the first event of its type, it has certainly put a lot of media focus on pilots' mental health - maybe to the point where the airlines will have to do more than just have a second person in the cockpit to reassure the travelling public. Even if it did satisfy most passengers, you would think that major companies like Lufthansa would also be very aware of the likely ineffectiveness of a second unqualified person in the cockpit for the reasons you mentioned - probably why they haven't bothered before. Even if they said nothing publicly, you would think they would be taking a much more serious look at the issue of pilot mental health. If they had another incident like this one, they would probably be out of business the next day because nobody would fly with them again. The problem is, how do you screen pilots with total reliability - especially if they deliberately set out to conceal the facts?

 

rgmwa

 

 

[farri]

Legally Issued to him. . . .read back a few posts . . . . .

Well I`ll be.........Yeah! Missed that...Thanks Phil... Did a quick Google search and rest assured, I`m told the guys are well trained in using a gun.....

 

The easiest way to combat this scenario is a policy where there is always two members of the crew inside the cockpit at all times.

Yeah! Originally, I thought that too!

 

Solution???........ No pilot???........Computers already do the flying, anyway.

 

Frank.

 

 

[Teckair]

Quick headshots are the stuff of Movies and T V programs.

Really, funny you mention that, the story we are told about Martin Bryant and the Port Arthur murders almost all were head shots.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

If you can believe that Martin Bryant was the shooter...

 

 

[Teckair]

If you can believe that Martin Bryant was the shooter...

It appears to be be a crime to have an opinion different to what we are told on TV and what the average sheep on the street thinks.

 

 

[gandalph]

GandalphGoing by the amount of shots fired at Martin place I'm surprised anyone got out alive.

Alf, it might've looked that way from the TV coverage, but those guys are very well trained. A lot of what we heard and saw were Flash- Bang grenades and stun grenades. Despite the tragedy of a hostage being killed by a ricocheted "friendly" bullet (a misnomer if there ever was one), the reports coming out of the inquiry seem to indicated that the assault team were very fucussed with their firing when they breached the cafe. I haven't seen figures on the number of rounds fired by the assault team or the number that found the target but I would surprised if there was a vast difference between the two figures.