Jim Webster wrote:
> Joe Garrett wrote:
>
> > If only one person on each of those airplanes had been armed, this would
> > never have happened. Those people could have been air marshals or private
> > citizens. It wouldn't matter.
>
> People do not use guns in aeroplanes for the specific reason that the
> first shot fired invariably results in explosive decompression when the
> bullet passes thru the hijacker and then the side of the aeroplane.
> Result one dead hijacker and seconds later catasrophic failure of the
> aeroplane structure and the crew/passengers are in free-fall.
>
> They have considered reduced charge ammunition but the concensus of
> opinion is that it would not put anyone down with the first shot and if
> the firer were close enough to the side of the aeroplane then the end
> result would still be the catastophic decompression.
>
> TTFN
> Jim
I simply don't believe that a shot or even a few would crash the plane due to
structural failure. I strongly suspect that's a Hollywood figment. Some years
ago a panel blew out of a plane between islands in Hawaii. A stewardess was
sucked out and killed, but the plane landed safely. Also, there MUST have been
window failures in the past. If that brought down airplanes, planes would not
have windows anymore.
Even a bullet expanded after hitting person would likely not bring down an
airplane, IMO.
-John
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 08 2001 - 10:58:58 PDT