Yeah, with that logic we should get rid of all the lifejackets on the plane
too. If you can't be 100% sure that a plane won't end up in the drink on a
overwater flight, that must be an implication of inadequate design or
maintainence of aircraft.
:^)


Tony



"Mark Rand" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 08:17:42 GMT, Gunner wrote:



I'm watching the rather entertaining show "Myth Busters" where they try
to prove
or disprove urban legends.

Tonight they decided to see if planes really decompress explosively if a
handgun
is fired through the skin or a window. They took a derelict airliner
and pumped
the internal pressure to 8psi. Then they rigged a Sig 9mm pistol to
fire
remotely [using a soda vending machine mechanism]. They fired through
the
fuselage and through a cabin window. Neither caused explosive
decompression.

Gee, I guess those British airline pilots who don't want armed COPS on
board
look every bit as much the idiots they sound.



Not in the least. The captain of an aircraft or ship is the one in charge
and
what he says goes. My preference would be to ban landing rights to any
aircraft which had an armed individual on board on the basis that there
was an
implication of inadequate airport security. Remember that the 9/11 flights
were internal US flights. had they been british internal or international
flights, it is highly unlikely that the weapons would have got on board.

Having one or two armed guys on a plane is a **** poor way of stopping
half a
dozen armed guys taking it over.

Mark Rand
RTFM