The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 13, 2001, 12:58 PM   #26
Marlin1894
Member
 
Join Date: September 13, 2001
Location: Mississippi Gulf Coast
Posts: 23
Hey guys,

Correct me if I'm wrong but last I heard, you were allowed to carry a pocketknife onboard a plane, provided it was non-serrated and sub-3 inches. You can do a lot with something like that. I like the keys idea. I'm guessing they already outlawed brass knuckles...

Marlin
__________________
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms!"

-Thomas Jefferson, 1787
Marlin1894 is offline  
Old September 13, 2001, 01:22 PM   #27
cyeager
Member
 
Join Date: October 1, 2000
Location: Wahington State
Posts: 16
I remember a post made by Rich a long way back about the use of canes in self defense. It seems there are a number of companies that offer specially designed canes and training in their use. I think this may be something to think about. Especially since we arent going to be able to have knives on an airplane anytime soon. But, who is going to tell you not to carry you cane on board? In he right hands that could be a pretty good weapon particularly against an opponent with a knife.
cyeager is offline  
Old September 13, 2001, 02:18 PM   #28
eyeball
Junior member
 
Join Date: June 7, 2001
Posts: 84
A-Team: I am serious here. what if the terrorists penetrate security and one of the terrorists is disguised as an armed sherrif?

what if the sheriff loses it one day and decides to hijack the plane?

remember, in order to have a free society one must have the ability to protect themselves. if you have an armed man aboard then there is no chance of defending against this. but if they have knifes then there is at least a chance as was the case in which one of the four terrorists plane crashed in the boondocks and didn't reach d.c. as a result of the crew fighting back against the terrorists.
eyeball is offline  
Old September 13, 2001, 02:26 PM   #29
Erich
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 1999
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA
Posts: 2,530
No more knives on planes, Marlin. None. New FAA regs as of Weds.

cyeager, I've got a bum hip (car accident when I was a kid) that makes it difficult to stand for long periods of time, so my doc actually TOLD me to get a cane. I picked up one of the Canemasters Gentleman's canes - nice solid hickory stick with no yin/yangs engraved on or sharp hooks ground into it. I would certainly use it if I were on a plane and the opportunity presented itself, but you're talking some pretty close quarters (at least in the class seats where I travel!). I think that would severely hamper its use (though I'd still be delighted to have it).

I think a yawara stick might be more versatile overall. Put that in your strong hand, put a rolled-up newspaper in your off-hand for jabbing, wrap some cloth around the off-hand for slash-protection, and aim for the tea towel.

Although, as of today, your best bet is to hug your knees while the sky marshall shoots for the tea towels.
Erich is offline  
Old September 14, 2001, 04:58 AM   #30
parabellum9x19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 8, 2001
Posts: 113
What can you carry on a plane that is legal that you can use to defend yourself with?
parabellum9x19 is offline  
Old September 14, 2001, 06:16 AM   #31
eyeball
Junior member
 
Join Date: June 7, 2001
Posts: 84
a rolled up magazine
eyeball is offline  
Old September 14, 2001, 09:08 AM   #32
Dave R
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 7, 2000
Location: Idaho
Posts: 6,073
A quality pen would be a reasonable stabbing device. That's great for injuring, but not stopping. A stab to the throat may be the best you could hope for with that? Still would not incapacitate immediately. But it would go great with business attire...
__________________
I am Pro-Rights (on gun issues).
Dave R is offline  
Old September 14, 2001, 10:34 AM   #33
Cheapo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 19, 1998
Posts: 986
I'm sure that once all the details come out from the various cell phone calls from the planes, we will learn that the decision(s) to resist the hijackers were made after the passengers realized that the plane(s) were to be used as ramming devices against Very Important Targets.

At that point, the boomyou'realldead factor becomes irrelevant. Preventing the greater harm becomes the passengers' goal, and worries about the terrorist pilot grounding the plane not longer matter as well, because that would also both thwart the terrorist's ultimate goal, but also accomplish the passengers' goal.

So, can the passengers voluntarily (or by majority vote or even by coup) sacrifice their collective lives to deny the terrorists their goals. YES!!! Greater love hath no man...

Comes a point when my life doesn't matter much, because I MUST prevent evil from conquering.

After all, how much good does the old-style hijacking do if there are no living passengers left to throw from the plane after it lands in Libya?

If we don't cooperate, the best they can hope for is a big body count. They won't get to broadcast their demands on world TV, and they won't be able to ram any innocent victims, either.

Resistance is futile?? Big fat hairy deal!! Our resistance will muck up THEIR goals too.

BTW, the issues of round penetrating the airframe and compromising control systems has already been addressed. Why do you think the Glaser SAFETY SLUG and other limited-penetration bullets were developed?

Gee whiz, tell the bullet designer what you want the slug to do (from a pure physics standpoint), and they WILL find a way. Stopping power is less scientific because of the biology factor, but we CAN make the perpetrator bleed a lot, hurt a lot, and maybe lose control of any weapons with a CNS shot.

Air marshals were abandoned partly because of the cost. Armed aircrews are a better answer.

_____
what if the sheriff loses it one day and decides to hijack the plane?
_____

Come on, eyeball, we face that threat EVERY DAY in EVERY PLACE where we have armed humans. If you really think that's a valid objection, then you're asking for an absolutely impossible level of security. Anwar Sadat and many other world leaders have been killed by their own security people over the last century, and THAT risk can only be minimized, never eliminated.

Price of freedom, a price that is still paid under tyrrany!
__________________
Let us never forget that the only legitimate source of government power is the citizens. If WE cannot exercise a certain power, we cannot grant it to the state.
Cheapo is offline  
Old September 14, 2001, 12:29 PM   #34
Deaf Smith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 31, 2000
Location: Texican!
Posts: 3,151
You all seem to sound like you have never been in an airliner. Have you noticed how narrow and crampt it is up front getting to the pilots cockpit? Do you really think through such a narrow place 40 or 50 people 'rushing' them will be able to do more than jam up like the 3 stougies? The will have at most 2 of you to fight at once. And the terrorist will have knives, you won't. And I am sure they will be trained to use the knives in that type of situation and be quite fit.

May I suggest.... Wear a bullet proof (and knife puncture proof) vest on the airlines. If not allowed to bring a small knive (which I doubt, knowing those stuipd administrators) then either a very hard small (I do mean small) case that is metal reinforced at the corners) or a cane (with doctors prescription) and a fake limp. The terrorist will not know you have a vest on. Use the case or cane as your weapon. Do not depend on any help from other passengers. 99 percent are sheep. Expect to be hurt bad. Might even have first aid kit (for severe cuts and blood loss) in the case you are using as a weapon.

I would also suggest some real serious training on how to use a knife, how to defeat a knife (without you gun), and how to use other convient weapons.

Deaf
Deaf Smith is offline  
Old September 14, 2001, 08:29 PM   #35
geegee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 27, 2000
Location: North Texas
Posts: 323
I fly a great deal in my job, and have often played out this type of scenario. The sticking point for me is this: what would your response be if the plane got up to cruising altitude, a highjacker stands up and slashes someone's throat (thereby indicating his level of seriousness), then grabs up a baby or a child and begins issuing commands. Now what? I'm no hero, but I guess I would be willing to rush one of these guys in desperation, knowing I'm gonna be cut pretty good...but what about that child?

I suppose it may become apparent after some time that the entire plane is going down, but would you be willing to make the first move and let the scene play itself out? I have to wonder if something like this in fact didn't happen. I'm sure we'll never know.geegee
geegee is offline  
Old September 14, 2001, 09:54 PM   #36
eyeball
Junior member
 
Join Date: June 7, 2001
Posts: 84
"Come on, eyeball, we face that threat EVERY DAY in EVERY PLACE where we have armed humans. If you really think that's a valid objection, then you're asking for an absolutely impossible level of security. Anwar Sadat and many other world leaders have been killed by their own security people over the last century, and THAT risk can only be minimized, never eliminated."

- posted by Cheapo

----------------------------

yeah but the difference with this scenario is the potential to do mass harm. I mean, a plane could take out 50,000 people whereas one sheriff who lost it could only take out like 5-10 people.... that is 5000 LESS people the sheriff can't hurt.

armed security inside of airplanes is a big no no.
eyeball is offline  
Old September 15, 2001, 12:54 AM   #37
calvinf
Junior Member
 
Join Date: September 15, 2001
Posts: 2
Number of people vs. number of BGs

I just want to add to the problem of large numbers of people vs. a small number of Terrorists etc. I am not a martial artist but I did read somewhere in some information on Aikedo that in defending yourself against multiple attackers it gets easier when the number gets greater than somewhere around four. Any more than that tend to get into each others way. This statement was made about a fight in the open, so it would be worse in a confined area. Of course this is assuming the person is trained in defending against multiple attackers. Someone please correct me if I am wrong on any of this, it has been a while since I read it.
Calvin
calvinf is offline  
Old September 15, 2001, 07:06 PM   #38
Glamdring
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 23, 2000
Location: MN
Posts: 1,388
calvif: The idea that large numbers of attackers are easier to fight is just not true. It is possible for team members to get in the way of each other but it isn't a given. If your fighting people that are not trained to fight together or simply against unskilled opponents you might be able to cause some confusion. But they still have the simple advantage of numbers. Say you face 5 goblins & you can kill 4 by jumping up and landing a "death blow" with each limb at the same moment in time, which leaves you with no way to block the 5th goblin from crushing your throat while you hang there in the air.

Put any martial artist you want on a football field against 11 defensive football players and watch what happens. Heck just use 5 football players without pads and stuff...if they are good college or average NFL player the martial artist probably won't be able to run fast or far enough to get away. Remember football players are used to running with a bunch of extra weight on them.

Or next time your in a dojo with a large number of people have a black belt volunteer to take on the class. Split into 3 or more groups and flank the target.

The reality is that two people that are weaker and of much lower skill level can easily take a single good MA if they work together at all. The team seperates enough so the single person has to comit against one or the other [or in other words your seperated enough that even a fient would have to be clearly directed at one team member not at the team as a group]. Then you can either wait for the solo person to attack. The attacked team member simply defends & the other team member gets to attack. Or both team members attack at the same time.
__________________
"A traveler has no protection besides his fire-arms; and the constant habit of carrying them is the main check to more frequent robberies" --Charles Darwin from The Voyage Of The Beagle
Glamdring is offline  
Old September 15, 2001, 07:47 PM   #39
calvinf
Junior Member
 
Join Date: September 15, 2001
Posts: 2
Yeah, I got to thinking about it last night after I had posted and realized the errors in my statement. I guess thats what I get for posting something I read without thinking it through.

Getting back to the original topic, thinking about your statements about the numbers of people beating training. I am thinking that the confined isle of the airplane while limiting the number of people who can face a BG at a given moment would be an effective funnel. If everyone rushes down the isle and the first person can somewhat restrain/block the BG at all (maybe with a couple of seat cushions) and the rest push from behind the BG would either be on the floor pinned in a high school style "dog pile" or pinned against a bulkhead. Then once pinned he could be easily be taken out. I remember in high school, about 20 of us almost accidentally crushed the assistant guys dean goofing off and "dog piling" him, we didn't think about the fact that he had 1000+lbs of weight on him, he was gasping for air for several minutes afterward.

Calvin
__________________
Experience is the hardest teacher. It gives the test first, and the lesson afterwards.
calvinf is offline  
Old September 15, 2001, 08:38 PM   #40
Deaf Smith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 31, 2000
Location: Texican!
Posts: 3,151
It would be fine if you could all huddle together in the airplane, shout 'Dogpile!!' and all run together toward the terrorist. Unfourtunaly, you would look back and see just maybe a few following, the sheeple would all still be huddled together.

I don't know if you could get many to help. It would depend on the makeup of the passengers. If they were all from Israel. I think there would be a mass dogpile! If, they were all liberal limb-wristed Barbara Strisanders, well...... LOL.

Just make sure you are as prepaired as YOU can be. Then expect to get stabbed.

Deaf
Deaf Smith is offline  
Old September 16, 2001, 01:04 AM   #41
parabellum9x19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 8, 2001
Posts: 113
Since it is most likely that the terrorists killed crew men/crew women early on to intimidate any counter attack, most people would be peeing in their pants.

Bigger passenger has disadvantage to thinner passenger since the aisles are narrow. Bigger person is bigger target for a knife.

Many travellers are tired from traveling and not at full strength.

I have been on buses where beat downs happened and the bus passengers did not intervene.

Visable armed sky marshalls would be a deterent.
parabellum9x19 is offline  
Old September 16, 2001, 09:26 AM   #42
Don Gwinn
Staff Emeritus
 
Join Date: March 9, 2000
Location: Virden, IL
Posts: 5,917
OK, since we're all assuming that we're leading the charge and that we're in confined close quarters, what strategies do we decide NOW to employ in order to minimize those disadvantages?

1. Make as much noise as you can? You probably can't sneak up on the terrorist from the passenger section. Several have mentioned giving a rebel yell in the hope that you will break the mob bystander mentality.

2. Attack the legs/get low on the assumption that the others behind you will attack high (untrained seem to do that most often.) This might allow more people at once to fight him, and there are obvious advantages to you attacking his balance while someone else attacks elsewhere--but are you committing suicide by attempting to bypass the blade and not controlling it? You could hope the next guys will stop the blade before it gets you, but that might be a thin hope.

3. Do you make it a priority to get past him or throw him into the seats, in order to let your "teammates" get better access? If I rush him in a narrow aisle and my friends are behind me, for instance, I tend to block the whole aisle. But if I can get past him, I have him between me and them and we have that pincer advantage. But is that going to be more difficult than simply controlling the blade and fighting to win on your own? What I see in my mind here is to "blast past" like a defensive lineman--if you go on the right side, you get as low as you can, get your arm low, and bring it up from about the waist to strike him around the shoulder/armpit. You are trying to lift that shoulder and turn his shoulder so you can get past him, while turning yours as little as possible. Stopping and turning to face the blade, though, might be a problem, assuming you get past it intact.
OTOH, if there are several terrorists in a line in the aisle this would allow you to get past the first one, leaving him for the others, and penetrate to the others.

Then there's the big question of whether I would remember any of this grand strategy when the balloon goes up.
__________________
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Gwinn: Chicago Gun Rights Examiner
Don Gwinn is offline  
Old September 16, 2001, 11:38 AM   #43
Deaf Smith
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 31, 2000
Location: Texican!
Posts: 3,151
Well, I guess like on the show 'Loss Cannons' you can act crazy, bable and jump around and just kick the S*@t out of them!

All I can say is, if you are really thinking about unarmed combat, I suggest you slim down, take classes, and enter some full-contact matches. May take while, one year at least, to get good enough, but I know many who are quite good fighters who can bet the stuffings out of me (and I have been in the martial arts for 20 plus years). You will also get some scars and lumps! I promise you that!

Get trained, get a bullet proof vest, cane, and a determined mindset, then stay off the airlines as much as you can.

Deaf
Deaf Smith is offline  
Old September 16, 2001, 05:54 PM   #44
Glamdring
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 23, 2000
Location: MN
Posts: 1,388
IF you have a moment or two grab something(s) to use as a weapon.

Empty hand stuff is for when all your weapons are gone or something happens to fast/close to use a weapon.

What type of attack or tactics you use should depend on your goal/mission/objective.

Are you taking them one at a time? Do you want to crash the plane?
Do you want them alive to extract intell before you go after the rest? Do you want to survive?

If your facing an opponent armed with a small blade and you can accept the fact that you will get cut then you can pretty much ignore the blade for the short term. As long as you protect the most vital areas of your body from the knife you don't have to worry about the knife stopping you.

From what I have gleaned about hand to hand combat you need to focus on either breaking a limb or landing a successful striking attack (probably more than one) against neck or head. Destroy the eyes. Or get a strangle hold or neck crank [ie break neck] applied. If you can do that despite getting cut you will have beat that particular goblin.

Most martial arts really are not very useful in a direct sense for life and death fights because they usually don't teach or have you practice any techniques that would actually end a fight quickly like you need to do in the real world against armed opponents. And the arts that do teach some useful techniques, like judo/jujitsu and others, don't teach you to protect all the real vital areas.

A knife cut (small knife) to the arm or shoulder isn't going to win a fight in and of itself. A finger strike or gouge to the eye might, and if you get both eyes then they can't see you.
__________________
"A traveler has no protection besides his fire-arms; and the constant habit of carrying them is the main check to more frequent robberies" --Charles Darwin from The Voyage Of The Beagle
Glamdring is offline  
Old September 16, 2001, 06:30 PM   #45
eyeball
Junior member
 
Join Date: June 7, 2001
Posts: 84
whats a "GB"?
eyeball is offline  
Old September 17, 2001, 01:15 AM   #46
Brian Williams
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 4, 2001
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 1,247
EL AL the Isreali arilines has had armed guard or personel on their flights for years. notice nobody hijacks their planes,
Brian Williams is offline  
Old September 17, 2001, 02:24 AM   #47
eyeball
Junior member
 
Join Date: June 7, 2001
Posts: 84
nah... theres bound to be one or two nutcases out there that will go postal... we can't take that chance.
eyeball is offline  
Old September 17, 2001, 11:26 PM   #48
parabellum9x19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 8, 2001
Posts: 113
Don't fly ever again "eyeball" because, like it or not, sky sheriffs are already on airlines now.
parabellum9x19 is offline  
Old September 18, 2001, 01:21 PM   #49
Cheapo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 19, 1998
Posts: 986
Reality Check, Eyeball!

"Come on, eyeball, we face that threat EVERY DAY in EVERY PLACE where we have armed humans. If you really think that's a valid objection, then you're asking for an absolutely impossible level of security. Anwar Sadat and many other world leaders have been killed by their own security people over the last century, and THAT risk can only be minimized, never eliminated."

- posted by Cheapo

----------------------------
and replied by Eyeball:

yeah but the difference with this scenario is the potential to do mass harm. I mean, a plane could take out 50,000 people whereas one sheriff who lost it could only take out like 5-10 people.... that is 5000 LESS people the sheriff can't hurt.

armed security inside of airplanes is a big no no.

_____________

Well, since the only woman on death row in Nevada is one who drove her car onto a sidewalk and killed several people, I submit that the idea of using any vehicle as a ramming device is neither new nor novel, and the risk you seem so concerned about has always existed with regard to airliner pilots.

What about tanker aircraft? Now, THAT'S A FUEL BOMB!!

What about the --Texas City?-- propane explosion in the late 1940s or whenever that happened? How easily could a deranged night shift worker duplicate the Bhopal, India poison gas disaster?

Listen, I recognize certain remote risks every time I pass a gasoline tanker on the freeway.

Seems like your risk of sky pilots "losing it" or whatever has always been a risk for every military plane that ever took off with a full load of ordinance.

Your approach reminds me of abandoning antiaircraft batteries on naval ships, lest some operator "lose it", "go postal," and attack either friendly aircraft or neighboring ships. Those missiles could conceivably sink a mid-size craft holding 3,000 Marines in very short order.

I'm just not comfortable with there being only *one* armed and very visible target on the aircraft. The aircrews already hold the power of life and death in their hands every day. Giving them the means to safeguard their power is eminently reasonable.

Arm two members of the crew. Concealed. Only claim that one is armed. And no one knows who the *other* armed crew member is, not even the captain. A certain measure of security and wise redundancy of safety lies in such a stealth approach. Plus standing orders to always answer "not me" when asked if they are armed.
__________________
Let us never forget that the only legitimate source of government power is the citizens. If WE cannot exercise a certain power, we cannot grant it to the state.
Cheapo is offline  
Old September 19, 2001, 08:19 AM   #50
Tim Burke
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 17, 1999
Posts: 551
A Few Overlooked Points

-We haven't had many hijackings in the US lately because the hijackers have learned that it isn't a percentage play to hijack a plane here. This latest outbreak worked because they had different motivations than previous hijackers. For any hijackings in the foreseeable future, I would assume that the hijackers intend to turn the plane into a missile.
-As someone suggested above, once a hijacker gets into the pilot's seat, getting him out without crashing the plane is going to be difficult, if not impossible. I suspect that Flight 93 was being piloted by a hijacker, and was deliberately crashed when he realized they were on the verge of losing control of the plane to the rebelling passengers. Since the best you can do once the hijacker gets into the pilot's seat is crash the plane, it is imperative that you prevent them from getting into the cockpit. Thus, you must be prepared to act immediately, without consultation.
-If the terrorists have a bomb, then they have a way to bypass security. If they are armed with makeshift knives, then they do not have a way to bypass security. If they have makeshift knives, but claim to have a bomb, then they are almost certainly lying. And if they aren't, then the best you can do is have them detonate the bomb while the pilot is at the controls.

In short, I think the most important thing you can do in this scenario is attack before they get into the cockpit. I think how this is done is much less important... Just do it.
__________________
TB., NC
Tim Burke is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2013 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13695 seconds with 7 queries