headers
Roland Perry | 1 Apr 2004 03:57
Picon
Picon

Re: weapons on aircraft [was VoIP regulation]

In article <HCEGKCLCHALDGMOIAHFDCEGLDCAA.oml@...>, Owen
Lewis 
<oml@...> writes

>The 'standard' Stanley knife only has a couple of cm
>on blade exposed.  Good for frightening and causing messy damage. P*** poor
>for killing other than of an already passive body.

You think that it's unsuitable for cutting someone's throat?

>> At the time, the talk was of "skinning" one of the cabin crew.
>
>Have you *any* idea of how long then might take and the number of persons
>required to manage it on a living subject and with a box-cutter??

Taking enough skin off for grave discomfort won't take long. And I think 
by now we've established that these box cutters *are* stanley knives (or 
the cost-cut equivalent with a fixed blade).

>One airborne, the flight crew has one job
>and that is to get the aircraft back on the ground with as many as possible
>safe and well. This means non-compliance with hi-jackers and, absolutely, no
>heroics. The fate of the cabin crew (who will be seized) lies with the
>passengers and any air marshal on the plane.

You may say that, but the American pilots interviewed after 9-11 took a 
different view. Americans are very risk averse when colleagues are in 
peril, much more so than Europeans.

>The such hijackers first requirement is to obtain moral domination and
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 52 comments |
headers
Roland Perry | 1 Apr 2004 02:27
Picon
Picon

Re: weapons on aircraft [was VoIP regulation]

In article <20040331222644.38860b49@...>, Brian
Morrison 
<bdm@...> writes
>These are the only thing I have ever heard called a box cutter

You are in the UK. 9-11, my research and I, are in the USA where the 
language differs :-)
--

-- 
Roland Perry
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Roland Perry | 1 Apr 2004 02:29
Picon
Picon

Re: weapons on aircraft [was VoIP regulation]

In article <HCEGKCLCHALDGMOIAHFDGEGLDCAA.oml@...>, Owen
Lewis 
<oml@...> writes
>You haven't visited many of the large corporate HQ's then in the last ten
>years or so ;-) London...Paris.... Rome....

Quite a few. Never been x-rayed at the door though. At least two issued 
me with rfid tags to track me round the building (to get vaguely back on 
topic...)
--

-- 
Roland Perry
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Brian Morrison | 1 Apr 2004 08:54
Picon

Re: weapons on aircraft [was VoIP regulation]

On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 01:27:25 +0100 in oMgRptLtH2aAFwua@... Roland
Perry <ukcrypto@...> wrote:

> In article <20040331222644.38860b49@...>, Brian
> Morrison <bdm@...> writes
> >These are the only thing I have ever heard called a box cutter
> 
> You are in the UK. 9-11, my research and I, are in the USA where the 
> language differs :-)

True, but the language is not *that* different!

--

-- 

Brian Morrison

bdm at fenrir dot org dot uk
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Brian Beesley | 1 Apr 2004 10:10
Picon
Favicon

Re: weapons on aircraft [was VoIP regulation]

On Wednesday 31 March 2004 20:29, Owen Lewis wrote:
> >
> > Trouble is, the requirement for such types of ammunition (large
> > calibre, low
> > velocity) also means that even the lower rated covert body armours would
> > prove effective enough.   I wonder what the current ruling on boarding
> > planes whilst wearing body armour is ? ;-)

Or even if you can recognise body armour!
>
> Range would be near point blank. Shoot at the groin for preference and at
> the head (much riskier and more difficult) only if the groin can't be
> pointed at; don't bother with anything else. The hydrostatic shock from
> that type of ammunition is enormous. Another benefit is that any fragments
> not trapped in the target are likely both to be non-lethal and incapable of
> breaching the hull.

Interesting idea, but flawed - assuming the target is going to take some sort 
of evasive action, it actually becomes much more difficult to aim properly as 
the range reduces towards point-blank - certainly it's likely to take longer 
to swing the weapon to point somewhere in a large cone of fire than in a 
small one.

As for breaching the hull, as as been pointed out before, this is not a real 
problem - breaching hydraulic or electrical trunking might be, though not 
with a single shot provided the aircraft systems are reasonably well 
designed. Aircraft hull construction is almost unbelievably unresistant to 
point loads applied out of the plane of the design stress; in general you can 
fairly easily push a pencil through; the furnishings would probably provide 
more protection against this sort of load, but there's just no way in which
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Martin Hepworth | 1 Apr 2004 10:43

Re: weapons on aircraft


James H. Cloos Jr. wrote:
>>>>>>"Roland" == Roland Perry <ukcrypto@...> writes:
> 
> 
>>>I'm not privy to the exact model of craft knife used by the 9/11
>>>hijackers.
> 
> 
> Roland> I don't know either. They are always referred to as "box
> Roland> cutters", but I've never seem anything answering that
> Roland> description in a shop in the USA, despite examining
> Roland> displays of craft and "stanley" knives closely.
> 
> Box cutters are not craft knives and will not be in that section of
> a store.  They are generally used to -- as the name suggests -- cut
> the tops off shipping boxes by eg stock clerks at department stores
> or supermarkets.
> 
> Google has some good images in their image search:
> 
> http://images.google.com/images?q=box+cutter
> 
James

given context of thread i think the first picture is most apt..

--
Martin Hepworth
Snr Systems Administrator
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Brian Beesley | 1 Apr 2004 11:03
Picon
Favicon

Re: weapons on aircraft [was VoIP regulation]

On Wednesday 31 March 2004 12:12, Owen Lewis wrote:
>
> It would actually be quite hard to kill someone with any of the products
> illustrated (though one could create a spectacular mess). Though the blade
> can be extended to several inches, it is designed to snap if any
> substantial lateral or twisting force is applied to the blade. It is also
> effective only in slashing/stroking motions and is relatively ineffectual
> in a stabbing motion. With the blade only about 1-2 cm extended it might be
> suited to use for cutting a struggling subject but the wound would be most
> probably non-fatal.

2cm deep slash to the jugular vein would be rapidly fatal.
>
> If you think it follows that the keeping of trivial 'weapons' out of
> aircraft achieves no good end - other than to satisfy the 'something must
> be seen to be done' school. I would agree with you.

Good.

> be seen to be done' school. I would agree with you. Naturally, the same
> does not apply to the prohibition without special arrangements of such
> items as high explosives, substantial quantities of inflammables and
> firearms.

Some passenger aircraft were fitted with high explosive devices at the 
factory, e.g. the explosive bolts used to seperate the tailcone of DC9 / MD80 
/ Boeing 717 to provide an emergency exit. I'm not sure that the starter 
cartridges used by some piston-engined aircraft are not also in that category.

All aircraft carry "substantial quantities of inflammables" - fuel! Also the
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Brian Beesley | 1 Apr 2004 11:48
Picon
Favicon

Re: weapons on aircraft [was VoIP regulation]

On Wednesday 31 March 2004 12:58, Roland Perry wrote:
> In article <HCEGKCLCHALDGMOIAHFDMEGCDCAA.oml@...>, Owen Lewis
> <oml@...> writes
>
> >The choice would be between a concerted passivity
> >that leads to certain death or concerted action to overcome the hijackers
> >(which process is, admittedly, less than entirely safe).
>
> Perhaps the Scottish school teacher who fought off a machete wielding
> attacker could give them lessons?

Don't forget we're talking about the _passengers_ here. You get about 30 
seconds to "train" them to survive plausible accidents, but most of them 
don't watch or listen to the safety briefing. Many of the passengers will be 
too young or too old to resist any attack by an able-bodied assailant; in any 
case the whole air travel experience is to condition them to passivity.

> At the very least you need to train
> the flight crew to ignore what's happening to their cabin crew, which
> immediately after 9-11 many of them said was psychologically impossible
> for them.

Absolutely. The whole training of flight crew is aimed at ensuring the safety 
of their passengers (including cabin crew) first, the safety of the aircraft 
second and their own safety last. This would be one of the few occasions in 
which there is a clear distinction.
>
> > Conversely, it is a fact that, faced with a hundred persons with
> >little short of murder on their minds, four hi-jackers, shut off from
> >the flight deck and armed with box-cutters haven't got a prayer between
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Ian G Batten | 1 Apr 2004 11:59
Picon
Favicon

Re: weapons on aircraft [was VoIP regulation]

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004, Owen Lewis wrote:
> near reflexive. Point at the groin and keep pulling until he/she drops and
> lies still. Upset can come after; none are likely ever to have to undergo
> the experience more than once. It's mental conditioning far more that it is

It would be interestingly, albeit politically incorrect, to do some sort
of high-reality simulation with the general public to assess their
reaction.  Part of the reason why, as I understand it, why stun grenades
are effective is that the guys using them are expecting it and know it
won't hurt them, while the people being stunned aren't and don't.

Small calibre guns aren't hugely noisy.  Big ones are.  Something like
.357MAG and especially .44MAG are hugely, intimidatingly noisy, and in a
confined space without hearing protection one wonders how well someone
not very well hardened to using a gun would be able to get off a second
shot.  I assumed from your ``not less than .356 True'' and ``magazine
fed'' criteria you'd be proposing either .45ACP or .40S&W: noisy.  And
that aside, again in inexperienced hands their ability under stress to
put the fourth round anywhere other than the roof would be limited.

I once shot on a range where the guy next to me switched from 9mm to
.50AE.  Even with ear defenders on it was intolerable and I moved into
an adjoining room, never mind lane.

ian
Permalink | Reply | 27 comments |
headers
Roland Perry | 1 Apr 2004 13:50
Picon
Picon

Re: weapons on aircraft [was VoIP regulation]

In article <20040401075436.178b1a18@...>, Brian
Morrison 
<bdm@...> writes
>True, but the language is not *that* different!

Grammar might be similar, but vocabulary is surprisingly different.
--

-- 
Roland Perry
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane